HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Using the Bible with non-Christians?
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:33:50 GMT

In article <warren.718548104@beloved> 
warren@pws.ma30.bull.com (Warren Lavallee) writes:

> Does anyone else other than me feel it is foolish to be talking about abortion
> from a Biblical perspective with non-Christians?

Talking about abortion from a Biblical perspective is not likely
to influence non-Christians such as myself.  Whenever I see
a post with bible quotes, I'll usually skip the post. (BTW, I'm
not pro-choice or pro-abortion).  

> They don't believe in Jesus Christ.  They don't believe the Bible.  

Why must you think in binary?  There are many non-Christians who
simply don't know whether the bible is factual or not.  I tend to
be very skeptical about the existence of God, but I'm willing to
keep an open mind. 

> They admit no absolutes, no matter what we say, it seems to bounce off them.
> How do you argue values with someone who has no values?  

This is complete nonsense.  A person does not have to be a Christian
to "admit absolutes" or to possess values. 



Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:34:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.232122.13523@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>[Ok, Simon.  Please subscribe to talk.abortion, and let's take this out
>of all the rest of the newsgroups, ok?]
>
>[Followups set to talk.abortion.]
>
>In article <1992Oct8.073626.1003@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>Actually, there will be ice floes on the River Styx before THAT happens.
>
>Please post your documentation showing that the River Styx doesn't have
>ice floes...
>
>>
>>Let me rephrase that--I should have said "Perhaps there are extreme
>>circumstances where abortion might be an option, but I am still against it.."
>
>Ok, Simon, let's get to the "extreme" circumstances.  If my Aunt Ann gets
>pregnant and tries to carry to term, she *WILL* have her spinal column snap,
>and wind up being paralyzed and in a wheelchair for the rest of her life.
>
>She's on the pill.  Ed (her husband) uses a condom every time they have
>sex.  They don't want to go in for steralization on the hopes that they
>will come up with some sort of precedure that will fix Ann's back, in which
>case they'd love to have another child.
>
>She gets pregnant.
>
>Would you let her have an abortion?
>
>Why should she have to ask you?
>
>>I can't just walk away from this.  I have committed myself to this debate
>>and cannot give up.  That would be wrong.
>
>Actually, you're wrong.  But that's ok.
>
>>
>>I have corrected my previous posting that was thought to be a vote for pro-
>>choice.  I should not have been so vague.
>
>No you shouldn't have.  The only way people can tell what you're attempting
>to get across is to read your words.
>--
>=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???=
>=It's National Coming Out Day.  Come Out, Come Out, Whoever You Are!       FW
About my River Styx comment: Anyone familiar with Greek mythology will know
where that River is supposed to be, and will understand that remark.
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:51:13 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Oct15.230439.6883@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <nyikos.719096777@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>}
>}                                            No penis penetrates
>}as deeply nor as savagely into the woman as a suction curette
>}or any of the other D& whatever devices.
>
>This guy ought to pair up with Simon.  What with his gift for turning
>a phrase and Booth's flair for plot development...
>
 What?? I just now saw this.

 Another pro-lifer on the net might pose a few problems.

 :-)
 (they don't like smileys here)

 Simon
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Violence From Pro-Lifers (formerly: Walking down...)
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:22:06 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <8eqTR9e00awH09zklX@andrew.cmu.edu> nm17+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nathan P Manes) writes:
>
>	True, there are pro lifers who become violent, But as some one who
>supports the pro life cause, I hope that I will be judged by the words I
>write and the actions I take.  All of the pro lifers I know would be
>just as angry as you are upon hearing of a violent pro life
>demopnstrator.

>	Although there were many protests made by pro lifers, I never saw any
>violence.  This battle is being fought by noble warriors on both sides,
>and no law will ever truly end this fight.  Both sides really are doing
>what they feel is moraly correct, and both sides hate the violence.


I'm sorry, but the sanctimonious nosiness of the anti-abortion crowd
makes me ill. And as for violence, my first exposure to the anti-choice
crowd was in my twenties was when I unknowingly walked in front
of a NW Portland clinic, and was slapped by a nun and had rocks thrown
at me by parochial school children who were pelting passersby with rocks
and calling them 'murderers.' As a good Lutheran who strongly opposed
commingling of the church and state, I took great pleasure in flattening the
attacking nun. When the Wife of God tried to slap me again, I stepped
inside, grabbed her hand, and bent her fingers back till they touched
her wrist on the back of her hand. I continued on my way to my friend's
apartment unmolested. The Girlfriend of Christ was kneeling on the 
sidewalk, not in prayer.

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Brain Waves
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:07:29 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>But seriously, Simon, there is no evidence that this brainwave activity can be
>>likened to anything more than the white noise you hear when you tune your radio
>>between stations.
>
>And there is no evidence that it is NOT accompanied by "someone home", and
>aware of the "white noise."

And how do you know that this may the case for a 15 week fetus but is
certainly not the case for an aardvark?  You seem to be all too
willing to play it extra safe when speaking of fetuses while
dismissing out of hand any possibility of intelligence in animals.
Either brainwaves are useful for suggesting personhood, or they're
not.  Which will it be?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42155 talk.politics.guns:22037 alt.conspiracy:11198 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5276 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6720 talk.bizarre:33870
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:57:13 GMT
	<1992Oct8.050742.12207@news.unomaha.edu> <Bvv752.Ltw@creare.com>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <Bvv752.Ltw@creare.com> inb@creare.com (Ian Brown) writes:

<   Anyway, that wasn't what I was intending to argue about.  Liberals don't
<   like rules that don't make sense or favor people who need no favors over
<   those that do.  

	This statement is false. "Liberals" generally (but not always)
	favor such absurdities as the Brady bill; a "rule" which
	makes no sense and favors only the politically connected
	and criminals....people who need no favors over Ms. Average
	who wants to be able to defend herself against attack but
	often cannot because of "rules" that reserve the right
	of firearms ownership only to the rich/politically connected.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion doctor builds small empire through his practice 
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:18:30 GMT

In article <Bw1nII.9EF.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> Did he use a big rusty nail to do the abortions

If he could have made more money doing abortions that way,
I suppose he could have.
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Human Worth in Unborn
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:32:49 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <Ueqjq=S00WB=4siH0U@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
[...]
> If it's still inside her at 7 months, then, yes,
> it's not born. If the mother, a day later has complications that cause
> her to go into early labor and she has the child, what makes that child
> so different from a day ago where some people are calling the child in
> the womb a 'potential human' or 'potential person' and will call it a
> human/person outside the womb?

Not everybody will call a newborn baby a person (surely they would call
it a human though).  Just assume that infanticide is a bad thing to do,
so once a potential person has passed the stage of birth, s/he is
quite untouchable and will more than likely progress through life
and become a "real person" (whatever that may be).

The way I see it, the greater the probability a potential person will
survive until birth, the greater the moral standing it should hold.
Therefore, a sperm with a small potential to join with an ovum holds
diddly squat for moral standing.  A fetus in the third trimester of 
pregnancy, holds a mich greater chance of being born, so it has a
greater amount of moral standing.

> How is this 'potentialness' determined? 

With haphazard probabilities, of course!

>Birth just doesn't seem to be the distinguishing factor to me. 

But that is when the law tells you "hands off!" if you're thinking
you don't want to have a kid.

>Especially since children survive who aren't carried to full term. 

Viable fetuses hold a great deal of moral standing according to
potentiality (at least in my derivitive of it).

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:05:11 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1aqa7eINN140@fido.asd.sgi.com>, cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
|> 
|> In article <Oct05.203207.51974@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu writes:
|> 
|> |Well put.  It is no more punishment to require a woman to fulfil
|> |her parental responsibilities than it is punishment to require
|> |one who signed an enlistment contract to go to boot camp, or to
|> |require one who injures another in a car accident to do
|> |everything possible to save the life and health of the one
|> |injured.
|> 
|> Since when is having sex equivalent to signing a contract?
|> And since when are people involved in car accidents responsible
|> for saving the life & health of an injured party?

	Engaging in sex is an act which may have consequences.  People are
responsible for the effects of their behavior on others when that behavior is
either negligent or willful.
	If you hit somebody else's car, my friend, you'd better try to save their
lives or you're going straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.  Are
you trying to imply that you SHOULD NOT have to help those you injure?  If so, it
is your position, not mine, that is ludicrous.

|> BTW, do you still want pro-choicers to die, Mr "pro-life" Arnold?

	Nope.  Never have.  And BTW, ad hominem attacks make you look like a
schmuck, CJ, so just cut it, OK?

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.singles
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: An Invitation Declined
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 10:30:39 GMT

csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
] 
] I would like to take this opportunity to invite all Pro-"Lifers"
] to go to their nearest universities offering Womens Studies courses.
] 
] Take one -- maybe two.  It would be fun to see some of you in these
] classes.

Alas, and alack....

Were it just so simple....

Having devoted a moderately reasonable amount of,
time both in and out of academic contexts, in the
deepest contemplation of this topic, I have yet
to make any sense of them....

Save that they seem to be the Leading Cause of HeteroSexuality.

Yea, as I deline upon the sedan and ponder upon
the mass of data accumulated, I have yet to find
a decent Null_Hypothesis to present as a basis
upon which to test any theory that is otherwise
developable from the years of hard work.

Maybe if they came with Man Pages....


ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42622 talk.politics.guns:22127 alt.conspiracy:11272 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5377 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6856
From: bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: So what is the Down Side?
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:58:16 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <1992Oct14.001442.14752@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:
>] 
>] Ah, but if it goes to the House, then the winner (BC most probably)
>] can not say he has a "mandate from the people" to pursue his
>] agenda. This may well make some Congresscritters a bit nervous
>] about backing any radical new changes. 
>
>bob,
>
>maybe you've been out of the country for a few decades or so????
>

Nope, just lurking here in the heartland of mediocrity.

>So far even WITH grand Mandates from the Masses,
>what sort of 'Radical New Changes' have we really seen?
>

Ah, but this time you have the potential for the two houses
of Congress(critterdom) and the executive branch all under
the same party.  Granted this *has* happened before, but
not with the same margins, party platform, candidate,
and weaker "Southern Dem" faction (i.e. fewer party "defectors").
Also, factor in the perceived "need for a change". I think it is peachy
to expect gridlock based on past performance, but it scares me that
we may not get "business as usual". Many folks don't seem to
realize that changes can be for the worse, not just the better
(the "any change is better than what we have now" faction may
soon learn to regret that stance...). One cannot bank of
gridlock continuing. There are truly heinous (to me) provisions
in both major party platforms (and some of what we've heard thus
far of the Perot's). 

Besides, if no changes are possible and gridlock is
inevitable, then why vote for one candidate over another?
If this is your belief, humor me and vote so that all
both branches of Congress and the executive aren't under
the same party. I don't particularly care which of the
three is an opposite & I don't care which opposite it is.
I think a viable third party would be a *good* thing at
this point (not to be construed as a Ross endorsement).

Do not read into this that I am happy with the way things are,
but I think I'd rather see a potato in the oval office
sooner than any of the three present candidates.

Also, I get the perception that you just like to argue for
arguments sake after browsing some of your postings hereabouts.


Remember those words of wisdom:

"Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it"



-- 
==========================================================================
              Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Can you beLIEVE this Idjit?  (WAS: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey))
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:08:29 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

Check out Nyikos' Harlaan Ellison reference near the end...

> = (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> = (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>>> = (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>>> I heard Cthulhu is a religion, Elizabeth. Making one of them a President
>>> would horrendously endanger the First Amendment.

>You are incorrect, but that hardly qualifies you for the title of 
>"clueless twit."

I disagree, but it hardly matters.

Luckily, Chaney _has_ qualified in so many other areas, we need not rely
on just this one.  You, by the way, qualify also, Professor.  ...As
we're about to see:

>>No, clueless twit. 
[...]
>>And if ministers and such can run for president, then why
>>not minor deities?  Why vote for a mouthpiece when you can
>>have a mouth?

>"I Have No Mouth, And I Must Scream."  Judging from what Elizabeth 
>has told me about Chthulu in an earlier post, Dean seems to be
>wishing a similar fate on Chaney as the narrator in the just-mentioned
>Harlan Ellison classic short story is depicted as suffering.

STRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR-EEEEEEEETTTCHCH.  Son of a BITCH!  <Incredulous
smile>  I have trouble sometimes believing people like you can say this
stuff with a straight face.  Are you REALLY serious?  Or are you just
having fun with us?

No mathematician could be so dense as to post garbled BULLSHIT like
this, Professor - a paragraph Holtsinger would be proud of, twisted and
so humorously, blatantly dishonest that a high school senior could
almost apply an algebra theorem and prove it untrue.

So...time to post that degree to the net :).  You sound like one strange
cookie to be messing with young minds.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: INFO: pro-choice protestors deny freedom of speech
Date: 17 Oct 92 00:59:02 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 16-Oct-92 Re: INFO: pro-choice
protes.. by Scott Safier@CS.CMU.EDU 
>  quoting steve chaney
>    And in the meantime, I'm going to sign up to join my buddies who will
>    be hitting ACT-UP super-hard, from now on. We'll get those buggers
>    back once and for all. 

    Scott I guess chickened out of the obvious attack here.  Do chaney
and buddies plan to get those buggers back with buggery?

    I still don't understand why Scott and Susan continue to reply to
chaney. Is it some sexual contest?  I would guess chaney is ugly and fat
and lives in Florida.  Find a new target for seduction.  A sane one.

Michael Loomis
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Ethnic Purging (Was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:53:55 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <adams.718638072@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
#c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
#
##Abortion is direct killing of our human offspring.  Illegalizing abortion
##does not directly kill women.  Even indirectly, it doesn't unless some
##women choose to bring on death to their offspring and themselves.
#
#Direct or indirect, you're still dead.

No, Steve, you said it wrong.  It's, "Direct or indirect, *she's*
still dead."

If it were Guerrero who was at risk, he'd probably understand.
Since it's some hypothetical woman, he could care less.

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42380 talk.politics.guns:22083 alt.conspiracy:11237 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5320 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6787 talk.bizarre:33993
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:15:02 GMT
	<1992Oct8.195357.7630@dg-rtp.dg.com>
	<1992Oct11.015308.25586@netcom.com>
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Oct11.015308.25586@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

<   crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes ...
<   >In article <BD.92Oct7104850@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
<   >>Reagan Bush have lied to you for twelve years!  Lied, lied, and
<   >>lied again!  They have come damn close to bankrupting the country,
<   >>and *you* talk about big spender liberals?
<   >
<   >What is Clinton going to do differently?

<   One of the most amusing aspects of this campaign is the technique used
<   by the Bush apologists of criticizing Clinton by showing how he's like
<   Bush.  Cracks me up.<

	That's nice. Now answer the question: 

	"What is Clinton going to do differently?"

[followup set to talk.politics.misc]

[Vote Marrou in '92]
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Re: Using the Bible with non-Christians?
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:33:39 GMT

In <adams.718553484@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>warren@pws.ma30.bull.com (Warren Lavallee) writes:

>>Are there any professing "Pro-Choice" Christians out there?
>Yes.

>>prince of the power of the air), so we can't do they same thing to them.
>>They admit no absolutes, no matter what we say, it seems to bounce off them.
>>How do you argue values with someone who has no values?  If we want to
>>discuss it with them, we need to do it (IMHO) from a worldly view point
>>(never forgetting what God says of course.) 
>Not being Christians does not imply no values.  Morals and ethics can come
>from sources other than religion...they might just be different than the
>ones you like.  I have two sets of morals...one for myself (I stand by
>Christ's teachings) and then one for society, based on concepts of freedom
>and personal autonomy.  I won't impose my morals on someone else, and ask
>in return that they agree to do the same.

>>What do christians think?
>I think we should keep our morals to ourselves and to those who willingly
>come to follow Christ.  No Christian should impose his moral values on
>anyone else, and above all should be tolerant of others.  If we want this
>kind of treatment, we must first give it.

> -Steve

Yeah, what he said!

-- 

Lori Kent Rothman
usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu

a computer is nothing but an autistic savant...
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In which tommy outlines the inherent misogyny of pro-life.
Keywords: Right from the horse's mouth.
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:05:12 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <Bw5wEu.4pw@dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
>>In article <31022@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>
>>>Discrimination against women can reasonably be interpreted to be a symptom of 
>>>misogyny.  
>
>...and while I'm on the subject:
>
>Since about half of all the foetuses I would be discriminating *for* would
>be female, your allegations of misogyny are doubly incorrect.

Since you don't know the sexes of the /z/e/f/s you want to protect,
but you do know the sex of the mother, I think it is you who is doubly
incorrect.  Please keep us posted about how you explain willful,
admitted discrimination except as a result of irrational hatred:
misogyny.  

SJM