HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 17:53:41 GMT

<1993Jan7.224312.5846@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>From article by patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey):
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
>>In article vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>>> 
>>>>>I don't think you understand... you got YOURSELF pregnant.  
>>> 
>>>> Nice trick, Heather.
>>> 
>>> Seems to me any time a pro-lifer brings up the fact that it takes two
>>> to get pregnant, he or she gets barraged with followups and letters
>>> from lesbians espousing the "teaspoon method".
>> 
>> Is that so?  I've been here as long as you have, and strangely enough, I
>> haven't seen any such activity -- 
>
>We all know you're blind as a bat.  Just look at what you married.

Crude, Suzanne.  Have you ever "looked" at Patrick's wife?  Are you
implying that she is a lesbian who got herself pregnant by the "teaspoon
method"?

...
>> Or are you saying you
>> really think Heather got herself pregnant?  (That *is* a neat trick, if she
>> really did that.)
>> 
>> --PLH, I don't think that's how Dale's daughter got here, though...
>
>Yeah.   She ain't yours.   She's another man's, a man who's been with your
>wife.   

Are you saying that children are just property that are owned by their
biological parents?  Are you saying that people who adopt are never really
the parents of the child and should not be respected as such?

>        I hope it drives you crazy.

How loving.  How Christian.  You actually hope that a man who marries a
divorced woman would be driven crazy by memories of her ex-husband.  Is
this what your "real" Christianity teaches you?


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: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 07:10:23 GMT

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes ...
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>You're kidding, right?  Let's get one thing straight, Paul.  The Holocaust
>>doesn't work very well as an analogy to the abortion issue.  I would suggest
>>backpedalling at flank speed to avoid being flamed to a crisp.  The Holocaust,
>>the systematic and deliberately cruel extermination of Jews, Slavs, gypsies,
>>assorted other "undesirable" ethnic minorities and disabled people by a
>>totalitarian government, is not an analogy to anything.
>
>So, you still haven't given me a reason why the holocoust is not a most
>excellent analogy.  Nazi's killed Jews and took their money.  Here in
>the U.S, unborn children are killed in order to free up some extra cash.

The Nazis treated people with force, disregarding their rights and
their freedoms.  Pro-forcers apparently wish to do the same thing by
forcing women to donate the use of their bodies.

You see, the Nazi analogy goes both ways.

>Don't try to trivialize this holocaust.  That holocaust was truely 
>horrible, but it is similar in many ways to what is happening now.  A kind
>of moral blindness descended on the people.  The soldiers and other Germans
>were actually able to convince themselves that what they were doing was okay.

You know, almost everyone thinks that quote in my .sig applies to
someone else, and that their own convictions really _are_ the "truth".

When one is willing to lie, insult, beat, kill, and destroy, all in
the name of this ideal called "pro-life", what can you possibly hope
to gain?  To win the war at the cost of your soul?

>Many people today just believe the lie that the fetus is a lump of tissue.
>Maybe it is a good idea that we be forced to walk through the concetration
>camp and see what has been done.

And perhaps you should take a walk with pregnant women.  See those who
die in agony during childbirth.  Pay the medical expenses for just one
new birth.  Support just one pregnant teenage girl who has to drop out
of high school.  Face the ridicule of being "a shameless slut" for
being the one who got unlucky.

That is YOUR concentration camp.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:45:43 GMT

In <1993Jan9.070656.5451@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes ...
>> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>>> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>>>Why do you feel pregnant women should not have a 
>>>>>right to refuse to have their bodies used to support a fetus?
>>>>
>>>>A woman has the right to avoid conception. Once her voluntary actions
>>>>have created a human being and placed that human in a position of 
>>>>dependency, she has obligated herself to act in accord with that human's
>>>>right to life.
>>
>>I am totally confused by your use of the word "voluntary".  What does the
>>intent of the parents have to do with the humans right to life?

>What does a human's right to life have to do with pregnancy?  OK, so
>the fetus has a right to life.  That does not, however, also imply it
>has the right to use anyone else's body while exercising that right.

Exactly the argument defused by my original statement.

>Similarly, while I may have a right to life, that does not mean that I
>am therefore justified in stealing from you in order to support
>myself.

>Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
>ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: An Item for Dougie
Keywords: trees
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:00:18 GMT

In article <+_!3g3l@rpi.edu> cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

> egg was brought to the Maitland facility Dec. 29 after a tall pine tree
> supporting its nest was cut with a chain saw on private property in a
> wooded area of Pinellas County.
>
> [...]
> 	The commission is investigating the tree-cutting incident, which was
> a violation of several county, state and federal laws.

What does this have to do with abortion?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:55:15 GMT

Just a correction:
<1993Jan10.004632.17418@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1993Jan9.073419.21882@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) :
>>From article by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>>>>From article by patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey):
...
>>>>        I hope it drives you crazy.
>>> 
>>> How loving.  How Christian.  You actually hope that a man who marries a
>>> divorced woman would be driven crazy by memories of her ex-husband.  Is
>>> this what your "real" Christianity teaches you?
>>
>>I think it pretty silly that so many people are so upset by someone simply
>>exposing the downside of such common life situations nowadays.   If it
>>_didn't_ bother Patrick, he wouldn't have a human heart in him.   Try
>>reading Hosea.
>
>Try reading what you wrote - You are hoping it drives him crazy.  You are

There should have been a "not" at this point.

>saying, "Gee, and it probably bothers you too."  I wouldn't really care
>about insults except you set yourself up to be this caring Catholic
>Christian yet I see you wishing unhappiness on someone because he can't
>be the father to his wife's daughter.  That doesn't sound very caring to
>me.  In fact it sounds very hypocritcal of you.
>
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Mark Punders: FetalIdolater (Re: Who are you guys?)
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:35:30 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>But typically nowhere near the 100% chance that abortion will kill
>the z/e/f.

Typical fetus worshipper. The truth comes out.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: JONSARC@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu
Subject: Re: Why we are pro-life:
Organization: Yale University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 01:02:43 EST

In article <3g+35rc@rpi.edu>
cookc@rebecca.its.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
 
>
>datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>
>>In article<1993Jan9.113651.26973@fuug.fi>, an anonymous person writes:
>
>>>I would like to explain why many of us (the majority) whom you call
>>>"anti-choice," take a pro-life stance on the abortion issue.
>
>>>[loooooooooooooooooong, tedious article deleted]
>
Thank you
>>If you're so unsure of your stance that you must post this anonymously,
>>why should I bother to read it? Post it again with some kind of
>>signature and I'll take it more seriously.
>
>Posting anonymously opens one up to speculations as to one's "real"
>identity, no?
>
Yes.
>Sooooooooo.......Chaney, anyone?  The arguments are the same, the personal
>details are the same, the whole article screams ChaHallney.
>
 And it would fit with his twisted personality to post the nasty, stupid,
>violent articles under his own account, while posting the calm ones
>anonymously.  He also knows that his name on an article carries a
>negative credibility rating in t.a.
>
>                     -rocker
Unfortunately, (or is it fortunately?), I don't know this Chaney guy.  But,
you rock as far as I can tell.        Sarah
 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55009 talk.religion.misc:25742 alt.atheism:25567
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 10 Jan 93 15:13:51 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

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> Some people are suggesting that Christians should be required
-> to assist in abortions.  

who are these people? what are their names?

-> The Freedom of Choice Act, which Congress 
-> is planning to consider soon, contains no conscience clause which 
-> would protect hospital employees from facing punishment for refusing
-> to assist in an abortion procedure.  

why should it? are not people free to work where
they please?

-> And Bill Clinton has said that
-> he would have no objections to using federal tax dollars to pay for
-> elective abortions.

great! if true of course. when did he say this?
please post references.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55388 talk.religion.misc:25961 alt.atheism:25786
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 09:27:34 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <C0q4x6.L8p@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>Why do people get so shocked to see the fetus-in-a-bottle?  I have seen
>cataracts in a bottle and I don't get shocked.  But when you carry a dead
>human body around, it is shocking.  

OK, 

New game:  Survey-of-one time!  

I've seen a liver in a bottle and didn't find it shocking.

However, I've also seen maggots in a bottle, and it's pretty revolting stuff.
And those little maggots are just going about their business, 'gestating'....

>If pro-choicers insist that a fetus is just a lump of tissue, then they should
>be no more shocked to see a fetus in a jar than they would be if they saw
>a lump of tissue in a jar.

Yes.  Gee, he's figuring it out.

And some who aren't shocked by the contents of the jar may well be shocked by
the stupiditiy of the jar's carrier.

Adrienne Regard
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I told you so...
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:06:33 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:


>I fully retract any apology I have given concerning Patrick Humphrey,
>because of this b.s. letter he sent me. He's a punk, and he deserves
>any insult laid on him or his family or whatever pertains to him - he
>IS an insult to his family, so what else would be new? 
>
>And his wife is STILL an ugly old hound dog. 

Steve...you sound like a whining 15-year old.  Grow up, will ya.


>  USENET Warlord / IRC Channel Owner / Accounts WorldWide / Home Login!
More proof of immaturity.  Bragging.  And he actually thinks this stuff is
unique.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Date: 12 Jan 1993 09:08:55 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <C0pvs7.LnF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike) writes:

>This is a very interesting point. However, if a pre-born isn't fundamentally
>different from a newborn then I think society would be within its rights 
>to extend legal protection to the pre-born even at the cost of denying certain
>rights to the mother (who is already legally recognized is a member of this
>society and subject to its laws).

Why?  Upon what grounds would society remove the recognized rights of full
members of society in order to grant rights to those fetuses who are only
*questionably* members?


BTW, "society" doesn't have 'rights'.  INDIVIDUALs have rights.

>Moral beliefs
>that do not involve competing rights are almost always wrong and doomed to 
>failure when made into law.

Scuse please, but I don't understand this.  Are you saying that morals that
are so universal and straightforward that everybody agrees with them are      
'doomed to failure' just because they don't have some element of conflict?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 06:53:15 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1378@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <lefty-040193163025@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>#In article <1236@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) wrote:
>##
>## Susan,
>## who joins the others in wondering why Dr. Giggles separated his
>## list by gender
>#
>#As do I.  I also wonder on what basis "Professor" Nyikos chose to lump me
>#in with those of the male persuasion.

Wimmin is sweet.  You ain't.  QED

>He's requested that others use e-mail to communicate with
>him, while he continues to post here.  I'm still wondering how many
>people accepted his one-sided offer.

Well, I accepted it as far as sending him a copy of Adrienne's post regarding
his lack of apology for his libel of her - certainly wouldn't want to have
PHoney miss *that* because of a sick newsreader.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:06:31 GMT

lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:

>In article <1236@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) wrote:
>> 
>> Susan,
>> who joins the others in wondering why Dr. Giggles separated his
>> list by gender

>As do I.  I also wonder on what basis "Professor" Nyikos chose to lump me
>in with those of the male persuasion.

Indeed, and in some otherwise eminently forgettable series of posts, he
publically announced that he had doubts whether I was really the gender
I claimed to be.  After several of these suggestions got no response from
me, he dropped it.

Gee, could I take this to mean he was lying about doubting my gender?

>Lefty 

                 -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54184 soc.men:22175 alt.dads-rights:3146
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: 5 Jan 93 05:22:33 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1993Jan03.063756.22258@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1993Jan3.023825.10611@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec31.180409.6025@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>I *know* you've done nothing to me but make me
>>>emotionally more hostile to father's rights.  (I still support the
>>>same things, but now I do it grudgingly.)
>>
>>Grudging support is still support. If Karl has stimulated some of the
>>undecideds or the borderliners into thinking through the issue, and
>>realizing how unfair the current system is, then maybe it has been worth
>>the risk, don't you think?
>
>No.  See where she said "*still* support"?  I.e., she hasn't changed her mind
>about supporting it (but *is* "more hostile" because of Karl's threats).
>I think that Karl's approach will lose more support than it gains.

I never implied that Elizabeth was one of the "undecideds" or "borderliners",
Larry. Your quibblemania is careening out of control. What I implied was that
the number of people whom Karl has shocked out of their dogmatic slumber 
or convenient ambivalence, who think through the issue, and end up on the side 
of male choice, MIGHT conceivably outnumber the previous converts who 
backslide because of Karl's stridency and/or the particular tactics he uses. 

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:06:08 GMT

sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

> [Deletions]

>> I think a healthy person's life is worth more than that of an
>> AIDS patient. Almost 100% of AIDS patients will never make it 
>> for more than a few years.

> A commentary on the relative value of human life.  Some will
> respond to the implications of comparing "healthy person"
> with "AIDS patient".

Just a few names of AIDS-related deaths to put this 'relative
value of human life' issue into sharper relief:

	Rock Hudson
	Leonard Bernstein
	Rudolf Nureyev
	David Voss*

Some very talented people, to be sure; their contributions are missed,
are they not?

> My opinion of the statement, regardless of the political content of
> the people being weighed:
>         1. Sad.
>         2. Sick.
>         3. Frightening.

Amen and preach it.

* Who was David Voss, you ask?  A friend of mine; a dancer/musician/
  composer/choreographer who'd just earned his M.A. in music when he
  died.  Very talented guy; he could've done a Leos Janacek on us.

-- 
Chris Lyman    /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /    my thoughts, my words
     "Dignity.  Always dignity." -- Gene Kelly in "Singin' in the Rain"
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Suzzie gets confused about sex...
Date: 9 Jan 93 01:51:19 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1993Jan8.235442.10422@ncsu.edu>,
by dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger):
> In article <1993Jan8.230127.21550@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>>> Hey Larry, that sounds to me like a proposal, if ever I heard one.

>>> Can I be matron of honor?  huh? huh?  Can I?  Can I?
>>> Or how 'bout best man?

>> Despite your evident confusion about your sexual status, it is safe to
>> say you could not be "best" man or woman.
>> If your current sex is still in doubt, I suggest you check your mucus
>> again. That always seems to reassure you.

> Hey Steve Matheson!  Here's an excellent example of the pro-choice
> game of "enrage the opposition" that I was talking about.   Ms. Forgach
> makes some innocent comments, and right out of the blue, Mark Cochran
> blithers out some trash and insults!  Of course, she'll get hammered
> for being "wicked" if she responds with even the smallest flame.

Mark's comment was crude and obnoxious.  I detect, however, that it
was also context-specific.  I note (and perhaps you do too) that I've
been debating Mark in a branch of the "Spoken like a true prolifer"
thread for days now.  The only way I could get him to flame me was
to *ask* him to -- at which point he invented a special insult just
for me [beaming, bursting with pride].

I'm left to wonder whether there's something magically mesmerizing
about my posts that leads sinister, bloodthirsty thugs like Mark
Cochran to degenerate into polite milquetoasts -- or whether folks
like Suzanne are just demonstrating the truth of the Bible:
One reaps what one sows.

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:33:30 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>> In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>From article by steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak):
>> 
>>>> considering forced birth as the alternative.
>> 
>>>Such a laugh!   It's no more "forced" that breathing.  In fact far less so.
>> 
>> Then please explain the ripping of flesh, for starters. Sounds like
>> *force* to me. Breathing doesn't do that....
>
>But ceasing to breath brings instant death, doesn't it.  100% of the time.

Suzanne, THINK before you post.  THINK.  Put BRAIN in GEAR.

(1) Hold your breath for ten seconds.  Did you die instantly?

(2) Please explain how being forced into giving birth (by having no
other legal choice) is far less 'forced' than being forced to breathe.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion