HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	)
Subject: Re: NAZIS OUT (was Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you)
Organization:  University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center
Date:  7 APR 92 12:06:21    

In article <stljxjc.zank@netcom.com>, zank@netcom.com (Mathew Zank) writes...

>boyiny@math.mit.edu (Siren) writes:
> 
>Why don't they come out more open then? all I have seen of the pro-life
>movement is the pro-control anti-women part of the pro-life movement
>(ie Nazi's). I would just love to sit down with the other side and talk
>how to reduce the abortion rate by reduce the unplaned babys, but all
>the pro-lifers I have seen just like to have control and put the goverment
>in our bedrooms.

If all you've seen is Nazi-like pro-lifers you haven't been looking 
very hard.  The incredible generalizations in the above paragraph make 
me question *your* objectivity.  What would you think if a pro-lifer 
said something like this?

John G. Heim                                 Email:  heim@macc.wisc.edu
[Undecided and proud of it.  :-) ]
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: The Pope is coming! The Pope is coming!
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 01:22:28 GMT


In a previous article, patrick@is.rice.edu (Pope Bruno the XVth) says:

>Sure, Steve.  Just like your church minded its own business during the
>Spanish Inquisition...got any more fairy tales for us?


and HOW many Christians were killed by non-Christian Romans and all
those crazy Ostrogoths, and Visigoths, and Vandals? ( I love those names!!)

past injustices irrelevant......every institution in the history of mankind
has committed "injustices."

After all......we're all human!!!!!!!

-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
From: jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:17:07 GMT
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505

mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:

>By giving
>teenagers access [to birth control] in Junior High School, we are indirectly 
>giving them the
>okay to having "sex".

I've heard this myth ever since I was a child.  Nothing could be farther
from the truth.  However, I think a great deal depends on _how_ you go
about "accessing" the birth control.  I think that if you just hand out
condoms or such without any explanation, then you _might_ be sending the
wrong message.  If you do so as part of a good, comprehensive sex education
class which stresses the importance of lovemaking in a _relationship_ and
not just to occupy your time, then contraception access can only _help_.

If giving kids access to contraception tells them that it's okay, they
what is the "okay" they are getting now?  Obviously, they are having
sex (not all, but a sizeable and unignorable portion of them) without our
"okay".  Why not give them tools to protect themselves and the knowledge
of when, how and why to use it?

>Besides, if they [teens] wanted to get birth control, there is
>always the local drug store.

I have a question for you Mikeey...did you ever purchase condems in a drug
store when you were a teen?  Do you know how it feels for a teenager to
walk up to the birth control aisle, look over the merchandise, select a package,
and then wait in line to pay for it, all the while being totally self-conscious
about his/her actions and wondering what people are thinking?  Many _adults_
have problems with doing this, and you are casually advocating that "there
is always the local drug store"?  As long as we have our crazy attitudes about
sex in this country, teens will be intimidated by purchasing condems.

>We definitely should give Sex Education in school.
>However, by giving out condoms, we will (indirectly) give them the impression
>that sex is okay when you're 12 years old DESPITE our intentions.

I agree about sex ed, but I totally disagree with your conclusions, nor do
I believe that there are any studies which back up your assertions.  In
countries where contraceptives are freely available to teens, not only is
there less teen sexual activity, but obviously fewer teen pregnancies, too.
(not that you can make a correlation between other countries and the US, we're
too damned puritanical...)


Jennifer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:15:41 GMT

cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

>>I have had a lot of time to form my rational and balanced opinion.

>Evidently, it wasn't nearly long enough.
         /^\
>         |            -rocker
          |
Oh.  So this is an example of intellect?

This could go on forever.  ;)

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:15519 talk.religion.misc:7282
From: cprice@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us (Clyde Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Who Is this Bob, and Does he Have Slack?
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:53:54 GMT
Organization: Clyde's TreeHut BBS

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
> ] > >>1. every time that the antiAbortionists have been
> ] > >>asked to defend their assertion of a 'christian'
> ] > >>linkage on the abortion discussion they have
> ] > >>proceded to show all that you attribute to blasphemy!
> ] ... If you try
> ] to claim that the bible says anything about abortion, you're wrong.

        I couldn't find anything in the Bible about _deliberate_
pre-birth abortion.  There were several references to infanticide,
especially the sacrifice of children to Molech.  Parents who
participated in this doubly earned the Mosaic death penalty as
idolaters and murderers.

        The closest thing I found to "abortion" was in Exodus 21:22-25
in a context of various laws about violence.

        "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she
        gives birth prematurely [lit. her children come out], yet
        no lasting harm follows, he shall surely be punished
        accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and
        he shall pay as the judges determine.  But if any lasting harm
        follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth
        for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound
        for wound, stripe for stripe."  (Exodus 21:22-25 New King James)

        The penalty for provoking early labor was a fine and unspecified
punishment.  The penalty for causing the death ("lasting harm") of the
child was execution, "life for life".

        Deliberate abortion and wife-beating are two crimes that
apparently are unmentioned (as such) in the Bible, in my opinion,
because they were so rare as to be unheard of.  In the tightly-knit
extended-family communities of Israel no abusive husband could _survive_
living so close to his male inlaws, and the value placed on children
(especially the hoped-for male heir) made deliberate destruction of the
unborn unthinkable.  Even the unwanted illegitimate births were brought
to term and given a degree of acceptance in the community.

        In the passage quoted above, the penalty for causing the death
of a pre-born child is execution.  That's as close as the Bible gets to
addressing the issue of abortion.



Clyde Price, SysOp: Clyde's TreeHut BBS 404/767-1632/I'm a "whosoever"!
P.O.Box 667      Sec'y: Atlanta Christian Tech Society (meets 3rd Tues)
Red Oak, GA 30272-0667/ CIS#76616,3452 /cprice@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us
* * John 3:16   F G s l t w t H g H o b S, t w b i H s n p, b h e l.* *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:33:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.202946.1687@csusac.csus.edu>, cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr14.033055.22143@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
|> >Cut it out, Chaney.  We're wise to you.  Comprende?
|> 
|> Chaney? What is this, a practical joke that won't die? 

Would that it *was* a practical joke, but making it go away is your
department, not mine...

|> I am not Chaney. I hope you can prove what you say, Patrick L Humphrey,
|> otherwise I demand a retraction from you. Either you're listening to a
|> liar, or you are a liar. I don't know which, and frankly, I don't care,
|> but to insinuate that I am Chaney [sic] is a gross mistake on your part,
|> and you owe me an immediate retraction.  

I don't owe you a damn thing, "Dennis" -- not until you prove that you
really *are* "Dennis Hall".  You've done nothing towards that end yet.

|> And seeing as that the proof is that I am not Chaney, and seeing that
|> someone who's tried to imply that I am, has been busted by their
|> sysadmin, I advise you to cut this out unless you want to be the next
|> person that gets brought down.

No one's been "busted" -- and we have a source that found out some 
pretty interesting things:  there *is* a Dennis Hall at Sacto State, but he's
not in any computer courses -- I hope he's aware of what you're doing to
his name.  Considering that your behavior is almost identical to that displayed
by Steve Chaney (the guy who thinks he's a little paper airplane, you know),
it's logical to suspect that that's precisely who you are.  Prove us wrong.

|> Comprende?  

Like I said before, we're on to you, Steve.  Threats won't get you out of
this, this time.  Enjoy the sunlight for once, bubba...

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.

                          "My god!  It's full of Spam!"
From: ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison Rebecca Colman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yea, SURE IT'S VERBATIM! (Was: What pro-lifers don't tell you)
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:01:28 GMT
	<1992Apr8.041453.7159@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>> Kellmeyer
> Nora

>>One last thought, Nora.  About testing for Tay-Sachs disease.  If a Nazi
>>really wanted to kill the Jews, it would be very simple today.  Fake
>>the lab results, and tell them the kid has Tay-Sachs.  Convince them
>>to abort and try again.  
> 
>Convincing them would take a lot of doing, in most cases, Steven --
>there are rules for when abortion is permitted under Jewish law, and
>Tay-Sachs is not among them.

In case nobody knew here, Tay-Sachs can be treated. One of my mother's
cousins is a surgeon who specializes in Tay-Sachs; he has a clinic in
California and a clinic in Israel. I think he was the first, or one of
the first, surgeons to successfully operate on a fetus. (He wasn't one
of the first to try, obviously.) So, I don't think that it is necessary
for a woman to abort a fetus that has been diagnosed with Tay-Sachs.
Sorry, Kellmeyer.

As an aside, I'll bet that he (mom's cousin) saves the lives of more
fetuses in one week than any pro-"lifer" would save in a lifetime.

Cheers,
Big Al
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: The Voices of Women
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 07:35:07 GMT

<1992Apr10.195329.15573@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) said:
><1992Apr7.172645.797@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
...

>say what you want.  Oh, I almost forgot, I speak for the rocks and
>vegetables now too...

That's good because DJR isn't around to speak for himself these days.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

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: kogutt@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (SCAVENGER)
Subject: INFO NEEDED!!!(really quickly like,too)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 07:38:55 GMT

Hi, I'm new to T.A. and i came here with a purpose.  I am currently writting
a feature article for a journalism class and I need info.  As you might have 
guessed, the artile is on abortion, specificly the upcoming Supreme Court case.

Can anyone (p-c or p-l, since I'd like to be as fair to both sides as possible)
please send me any information that might help.  Please E-MAIL, or if not
possible, post a reply.

Thank you in advance.

----Todd Kogutt

-- 
If some unemployed punk in New Jersey, can     |kogutt@ucsu.colorado.edu <-I.NET
get a cassette to make love to Elle McPherson  |
for $19.95, this virtual reality stuff is going|No matter where you go,
to make crack look like Sanka. -  Dennis Miller| there you are."-Buckaroo Banzai
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A rather peculiar letter.
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:53:28 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Distribution: usa
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <18022@oasys.dt.navy.mil> 
     bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>>
>> How can you possibly compare abortion with buying a car?

> This is called an analogy. It gives a correspondence between two *dissimilar*
> situations to allow one to see an aspect in a new light.

I understand it is an analogy. I was asking how anyone could trivialize
abortion by attempting to compare it with buying a car. It's like
comparing the holocaust with mowing the lawn. Both comparisons trivialize
the issue at hand. If you think abortion is a trivial issue, fine, 
that's your opinion, not mine. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C. ["some people"]
Summary: not true that pro-choicers deny that a fetus is "a living human being"
Keywords: forced childbirth
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 07:50:44 GMT

In article <9APR92.06401786@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>I think that the reason some people (Pro-Choicers) deny that a fetus is a
>living human being  is because if they accepted that a fetus is human, then
>that would make abortion murder.  They need to convince themselves that a
>fetus isn't human, so it is o.k. to kill it.  Abortion is an easy answer to a 
>lot of problems.  People who get pregnant (or who get someone pregnant) and 
>don't want to deal with the responsability think that the best way to solve 
>their problem is to get rid of it.  If that's murder, then they are stuck, so 
>they call it "termination of pregnancy" and all problems are solved. 

	I am pro-choice and I don't deny that "a fetus is human." I'm
	pro-choice because I can't justify banding together and forcing
	unwillingly-pregnant women to give birth against their wills,
	even if they're pregnant with concert violinists or Einsteins.
	(And abortion *is* termination of pregnancy; it refers to the 
	woman's pregnancy, not the fetus. In fact, "fetus" in its original 
	sense refers to the woman, as well.)
				Dave Suess	zeus@aerospace.aero.org
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:02:23 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr13.153353.18699@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <1992Apr13.003632.4809@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>   In any case, my point is : Not every method of birth control is
>>ok, or 100% effective. Try abstinence. Great way to end STD's, 
>>abortions, or any concerns about that missed period. 
>Wow, what a great Idea.  I'm just going to scurry on home and tell my partner
>of 9 years that from now on, it's abstinence for us!  I'm sure he'll 
>thank you for the wonderful tip.

Your sarcasm is funny and effective.
*pssst* that last sentence was REAL sarcasm...

   In any case Adrienne, I know what you mean. Abstinence is tough,
but it is a hell of a lot more responsible than abortion. Although,
after being with your partner for 9 years, your love must be so strong
that you could never terminate an unborn baby which represents 
50% of your spouse/husband/lover/whatever. So, clearly you have nothing
to worry about because you are a responsible woman. 

   But, something whispers inside of me that there are some women out there
(but not you!) that just cannot face the responsibility and hardships
of pregnancy. It takes guts, determination, and a LOT of support from
a loving spouse. You have all of those, so I am sure you would never
contemplate abortion.

By the way, if your partner is glad about the tip - you don't have to 
credit me. Pretend you thought of it yourself! Spread the word.

abstinence = chaste
abortion = waste

   heh
steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel")
Subject: Re: Mommy! They Called Me Names! (Was: Implications of Abortion...)
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 22:00:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.190057.24646@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve  
Franklin) writes:
> >When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.
>    When a REAL man respects life, he supports the woman's unborn child.

..or, if he cannot support the child, is honest enough to admit it.

>    When a REAL man loves a woman, he supports her pregnancy so fully
> that she would have no reason to have an abortion...

All the support in the world may not be enough if the pregnancy endangers  
her health or life. You've mentioned that you would allow abortion in at  
least the latter case, so I'll commend you on that. 

>    When a REAL man loves a woman, he offers the life long commitment of
> marriage to her. 

If that's what they both want, certainly.

> 
> >     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
> >   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
> >   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet:  
judi@wam.umd.edu
> >|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
> >                                               \
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^ bahaha, that's a bit of
>                                             convoluted logic isn't it?
> Abortion has a wierd habit of disrupting the concept of family...
> How can you condone abortion yet imply you are "pro-child"? Even if you
> consider the fetus NOT to be a child, surely as a "pro-child" you'd like
> to give each one a chance?

Here's how, my friend. As for "pro-family," I consider a loving couple
(regardless of gender or marital status) to be all the family that's  
necessary, if that's what they choose. As for children, I ADORE them.
I do think they're gifts of God, nature, or whatever. They deserve nothing  
but the best in life; I just happen to realize that if I were a mother, 
I would be far from the best. It has nothing to do with career or  
materialistic goals, just my personality and family medical history.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
"All we ever look for: a god...a drug...a great big hug." -KaTe Bush
 Big ol' IU taking the opinions of one undergrad?!? Yeah, right....
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Pope is coming! The Pope is coming!
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:59:45 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <9204141813.AA28502@nettlerash.berkeley.edu> GB0012@SIUCVMB.BITNET writes:
>franklin at ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>My religion too, Steve.  Did you include the 'facet' of faithful Catholics
>who want to keep abortion legal ... like myself?

   Suzanne. I wasn't aware you'd post this AND mail itto me... But, 
I guess I'll repeat my argument...
   You cannot support abortion and consider yourself a "faithful
Catholic". You cannot reject the doctrine of the Catholic churc
yet consider yourself to be a faithful worshipper.
   You will not necessarily be communicated for your beliefs Sue, you're
right. But, you cannot call yourself a practicing and faithful 
Catholic yet reject God's message AS WE interpret it. If you choose to
interpret it differently then you have modified your religion and canot
consider yourself a Catholic. There is nothin wrong with that, but
you MUST be clear. YOu see this has several problems:
1) You confuse the majority of the populus by presenting two different
messages of the Catholci church
2) you raise inconsistency within the church. We must preach and pray
the message as a union. 
3) You cannot overlook the word of the Holy Father. Whether you accept
him as your leader or not is not my concern. YOu must accept
his word as Jesus asked of us with Peter. As someone else posted, 
he doesn't ask you to do anything he wouldn't. Now, abortion is not
one of his options, but erejecting the fact that he is truly wise
and intelligent in his piety and message would be ludicrous.
   steve




































-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:15556 talk.religion.misc:7316 alt.abortion.inequity:896
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: On Sinning and Being Roman Cathooic
From: mgaylord@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Gaylord)
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:26:33 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

In article <1992Apr5.223812.4297@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>sienerbc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Brian C. Siener) writes:
>] If you pay attention, you'll see that according to my statement, those who do
>] commit these offenses and actually do know that they are committing sins, then
>] they are Catholics.  You all are missing the point entirely.  To sin and not
>] admit it makes you not a Catholic.  However, even if one sins (as all do), if
>] they admit it, instead of saying they are *right*, then they can be Catholic.
>] But to openly say that abortion is fine (thus sinning in the eyes of the  
>] Church), then one cannot be Catholic without admitting that sin.
>
>1. you are aware that the same edict that starts the notion
>that abortion is immoral also resolved that the unborn do not
>have souls.....
>
>2. So those who oppose Abortion, and thus try to defend their
>arguments by making assertions about the 'souls'of the unborn
>should RECANT their Opposition to Roman Catholic policy in
>regards to the argument of souls so as to escape from Sin?
>
>3. Such Roman Catholics who hold both that Abortion is Immoral
>and that there are souls in the unborn, are in SIN??? And
>must correct their Heretical Notions?????

or not mention souls and just state that it is immoral.  Its nice to see
that drieux recognizes that abortion is immoral.


>
>ciao
>drieux
>
>
>-- 
>EOT 
>No More Written InPut 
>Why are you Looking Here?
>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity