HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Was Pitts Out of the Loop During the Persian Gulf War?
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:38:18 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Nov5.160559.18197@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
|In article <73744@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) 
|writes:
|
|}For THE Christ and His Kingdom,
|}Richard Pitts
|
|Richard Pitts will kill you if you don't heed him.

Could you give your logic on how you arrived at this conclusion?
Or is it your bias against my view.  Remember I don't think
MURDERING THE UNBORN is a noble nor correct thing to do.
Others, maybe even yourself, think this murdering is ok, but no I.

|Actually that might not be true.  Richard Pitts will probably have 
|somebody else kill for Christ, and stand by and applaud.

Again, give support for your conclusion.

|Note to Father Doug:  I didn't bring religion up again.  Richard did.

I think it was someone else who questioned which Christ I pledged
my allegiance and I responded.  However, I often close with "For
Christ and His Kingdom".  One's beliefs (world view, be it theist
or atheist or some where in between) drives their reasoning - this
is true for me as it is for you.  I recognized my relationship
to The Lord as the driving force of my life and my actions.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: spinoza@next06wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Post Natal Abortion (couldn't find original)
Date: 8 Nov 1992 04:01:46 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland College Park
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: next10wor.wam.umd.edu

In article <1992Nov7.235252.17395@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu  
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> The idea that infanticide is not wrong has been expressed by a
> number of other pro-choicers on this newsgroup; it's nothing new.  
> And don't be surprised when the other pro-choicers stay silent
> on the subject. 
> 
> > John J McVey
> 
> 
> Doug Holtsinger
Post-natal abortion (if, in fact exists, and is not just a figment of the  
FeveredImaginationofaFetalIdolator (tm)) would be wrong. So what, exactly  
is your point?  Could you give us a list of pro-choicers making that sort  
of a statement,  please? Or are you merely speaking out of that part of  
the anatomy which most BornPersons(tm) sit on? 


shalom

jeff

"Let no one build walls to divinde us
Walls of hatred or of stone
Come greet the dawn and stand beside us
We'll live together or we'll die alone"
		
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:32:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.145006.2748@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.175749.20629@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <1dcctgINN5kg@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov5.204934.29875@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>>>
>>>So, let's make these dishonest people have children!!!
>>>So, let's make these underage females have children!!!!
>>>So, let's make these ignorant people have children!!!!
>>>So, since she committed the sin of *changing her mind*, let's force her to
>>>have children!!!!
>>>Because, if they *don't* meet your standards on knowing what they are doing,
>>>it is *much*, *much* smarter to force them to have CHILDRE!!!!!
>> 
>> A one-word refutation of Adrienne's points: adoption.
>
>Please expand.  I can't see how adoption is the cure-all for forced
>pregnancies.

I am not advocating adoption as a cure-all, nor do I advocate forced 
pregnancies. At the same time, if Adrienne is concerned about children
being raised by "dishonest", "immature", "ignorant", "sinful", "fickle" and/or
"misguided" women, then adoption seems an obvious stock response, does it not?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:38:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct19.034325.6013@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.203118.25907@netcom.com> 
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>
>>>yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>
>>>> I'm curious about the criteria that other people who are pro-choice
>>>> would use to determine whether an organism is a person.  I'm
>>>> pro-choice, but it seems to me that abortion rights activists are
>>>> often unclear about this in their public statements.
>
>>> Pro-choicers are often intentionally unclear about their definition
>>> of personhood because they're usually unable to express a consistent 
>>> and coherent definition without either accepting infanticide or
>>> animal rights, or both.  
>
>> No liar, it's because it isn't necessary to the discussion.  Does one
>> person/animal/vegetable/mineral have the right to invade the body of
>> another person?  Does a woman have the right to evict an unwelcome
>> guest?
>
>Assuming for the moment that we accept your premise that persons 
>should have the right to remove other persons who are inside their 
>bodies, this will only confer a right of removal, not a right to
>kill.  During most abortions, the fetus is killed first, and
>removed later.  

The fetus will die anyway, why subject the woman to more risk and cost
than necessary, just for a "symbolic gesture"?

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: posting path....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:06:53 GMT


>>Article 67640 (141 more):
>>Path: wetware!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!concert!rock!taco!jjprice
>>From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
>>(SAME) Subject: Re: Right to Choose
>>Message-ID: <1992Nov6.195649.11104@ncsu.edu>
>>Originator: jjprice@c00081-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
>>Lines: 79
>>Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
>>Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
>>Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
>>References: <1992Oct31.192919.15054@ncsu.edu> <82917@ut-emx.uucp>  <83128@ut-emx.uucp>
>>Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:56:49 GMT
>>
>>

Can anyone explain to me why, if this is suppose to be
coming out of 'ncsu.edu' that there is NO reference to that
domain in the 'Path:' line above?

has ncsu.edu sorta fallen off the planet?

ciao
drieux


ps: or does the use of 'valium' change the way that
the 'Path:' line works????


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, and the Other Two Called for Air Support.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:38:24 GMT

Peter Nyikos followed up an article I posted ten days ago by
responding to Ms. Cook's arguments which I quoted and tagging a one
line response to my thoughts, so I'm leaving in all the text and
repsonding to Mr. Nyikos.

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
# >cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
# ># Now, you've demonstrated that it is _more_ likely that a z/e/f will
# ># become an infant than any random sperm.  So...we have to write a law
# ># on this.
# ># 
# ># What's the magic number?  What percentage of becoming a human infant
# ># makes something worthy of protection?  Can't be anything >0, that
# ># would qualify sperm. 
# 
# Human sperm?  Where can I read about actual cases?

Out of the trillions of sperm your father produced, *one* of them
became a zygote that developed into a fetus that eventually developed
into a math professor named Peter Nyikos who is depressingly unable to
comprehend statistics.

If this doesn't satisfy you, I suggest you examine the other five
billion plus walking talking examples of sperm that developed into
human infants.  Oh sure, I suppose you could make the argument that
human infants are all delivered by storks to their mothers from
factories in Antarctica, but surely you're not that pinheaded.

-----

# ># Can't be 100%, that would disqualify fetuses in the birth canal.
# 
# W. Blackstone, the great common-law scholar of the 18th century,
# wrote of "An infant *in ventre sa mere*, in the mother's womb,"
# and he was hardly alone in this.
# 
# >...and if there is an easily defined point where something goes
# >through a phase transition where its likelihood of becoming a human
# >infant significantly increases, why should we pick that point to give
# >it the rights we currently only give to actual human infants?
# 
# See Blackstone's words again.

Ah, so in this matter, you simply haven't thought it out for yourself,
and you are totally unable to paraphrase the arguments of the man who
thought it out for you, and if I want to find out what *YOU* think the
answer to my question is, I should look up the words of a 19th century
legal scholar with only a last name and an initial as a reference.

Thanks for the *CLUE*, perfessor.  I shall love it and pet it and
cherish it as my very own.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``Democracy is the theory that the common 
| J H Woodyatt              |  people know what they want, and deserve to
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  get it good and hard.''
+---------------------------+                              -- H L Mencken
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ATUI: In Retrospect (Take 2)
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:38:23 GMT
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California

mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes ...
>Well, retyping the whole position paper again has definitely revealed
>a number of questions I need to answer.  I also found out I use the
>words "deemed" and "simply" far too often!  Quite a few inconsistencies
>and inflammatory passages in there, but I think with a little work
>they could be considered acceptable.  Flame or comment away (I may
>even opt to flame myself for a few statements).  Keep in mind I
>wrote this to positively convey my own postion, not as a regular
>essay in which all the sides are considered without too much bias.

1) Too much tendency to take a position then find supporting facts.
2) Reveals that peculiar bigotry many conservatives are prone to when
discussing anything with a "liberal" label.  3) What's the point of
writing such a paper if you're not even going to attempt a fair
treatment?  Sounds like a typically right-wing sort of stunt.  :-)

>If you think the whole thing is a waste of time and bandwidth, too
>bad for you (and I have lots of time now that I'm unemployed and 
>awaiting a visa to get to Texas!).

Texas?!?  Ack, ptui.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: MARK IRA KAUFMAN CAUGHT LYING (was Re: JUST ANSWER THE DAMNED QUESTION
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:27:03 GMT

In <1992Nov2.213423.20451@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1d45kqINN2d1@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> 
>bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

>> Doug Holtsinger cannot answer a question directly.

>Mark Ira Kaufman is a damn liar; I've already answered
>the question: 
> 
>----
>From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
>Subject: Re: A DIRECT QUESTION FOR HOLTSINGER...
>Message-ID: <1992Aug23.192025.26041@ncsu.edu>
>Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 19:20:25 GMT

>In article <1992Aug23.183047.19575@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> 
>bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

>> Since you complain about so many different aspects of abortion
>> rights, are there ANY circumstances under which you would support
>> a woman's right to choose.  

>I have expressed my support for overturning Roe v. Wade, so that  
>the voters of each state can decide the abortion issue.  I also  
>oppose the passage of the FOCA, because it would codify Roe into
>national law.  Other than that, I have not yet taken a position 
>on legislation that would further restrict abortion beyond the
>permissible restrictions set forth in Roe. 

>Doug Holtsinger

And all this time I thought Doug was pro-life!  Now it turns out
that he is no more pro-life than Elizabeth Bartley!  Maybe less!

[I seldom read Doug's posts, BTW.  So don't be talking about my
lack of reading comprehension.  Clueless, yes; unable to interpret
clues, no.]

[Now, what's Mark Ira Kauffman's excuse?]

Next time somebody asks me why I don't criticize a pro-lifer like
Doug for being racist, changing quotes, etc. I'll ask "what 
pro-lifer"?

Peter Nyikos
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: twisting (Thans for life)Read!
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 03:18:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.184430.8657@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>> 
 
>> And by stopping conception, you are taking away the potential for life.  
>> This puts abortion in the same category as birth-control.  Removing 
>> potential life.

>As you know I am a Christian and know that christians (real ones) do as our God
>says and saves sex for marriage.  It is a gift that we have abused.

EXCUSE ME! MARRIAGE DOES NOT PREVENT PREGNANCY! HONEST! MARRIED PEOPLE GET
PREGNANT, TOO!

So, what does marriage have to do with abortion and birth control?


>> You still haven't said what you want to do with the millions of 
>> "child-killers" running loose in this nation.  If you decide they can 
>> go unpunished, then you are saying abortion is no big deal.  If you 
>> want to punish these "child-killers", then you have committed political 
>> suicide for your side.  I can see why you side-stepped this point.

>Christians are doing something about it.  That is why we have come out of the
>churches to do as Jesus said to and tell the truth.

Just WHAT are you going to do? Burn them at the stake? Human sacrifice of
heretics is a very old Christian custom; and I'm sure you'll limit this
murder only to the born. I see it now - life begins at conception and
ends at birth.
 
>We need to help our children to grow up in a society that they can know what is
>right and what is wrong. 

Right. Anything you agree with is right. Anything you don't like is wrong.
And the government elevates your opinion into law.

>We were given the ability to do as we want, even against God, to have freedom. 
>Isn't God great to give us the ability to hate him or the choice to live in
>him.

And if we don't all 'live in him' your way, well, the government will make
that choice for us. This makes a hell of a lot of sense.

>Much of religion is organized because there REALLY IS a God out there directing
>us.  A seperate nation.  One that is open to everyone.  Please consider it. 
>Don't let our difference of opinion keep you out.

And if we disagree, you'll pass neat and nifty laws to force us in.

>Also, I don't think we should support a law only if it agrees with special
>interest groups such as planned parenthood.

Or BirthRight. Or the Baptists. Or The Right to Life. Or the Catholic Church...



-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47345 alt.child-support:3618
From: shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Nadja's Reprehensible Attitude Towards Men
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:16:14 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

In article <1992Nov9.063039.4395@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU writes:
>I welcome your commitment but what I disagree with is people of the 
>anti-abortion crowd trying to IMPOSE their ideals on others against their
>will.  That's the whole point of "pro-choice"; the individual involved
>get to make their own choice.  You'd choose to remain pregnant, other
>men wouldn't.  Each individual choses.

Yep, that's the theory all right.  

But try to support abortion alternatives (abstinence, parenthood,
adoption), and see how much support you get from the "pro-choice"
crowd. If you're lucky they'll ignore you -- more likely they'll try
every legal means to shut you down, since, by supporting other choices,
you are automatically trying to IMPOSE ideals.

And try (in the next four years, at least) to exercise a choice not to
PAY for abortions of poor women.  President Bill has pledged to lead a
"pro-choice" agenda where your choices end at the point where your
wallet begins. 
				Tim
-- 
Tim Shimeall ((408) 646-2509)
The proper response to detecting a bug isn't to fix the bug - it's to make 
sure you'll never have to worry about that bug again.  --- Richard Hamming
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why pro-choicers must argue that a fetus is not a person
Date: 9 Nov 1992 08:24:44 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov5.182912.2718@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>In article <1d8f04INNee4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>> Exactly.  So why bend over backwards to call in-utero humans non-persons?
>And why bend over backwards to call them persons?


"You might as well fall flat on your face as lean over too far backwards."

James Thurber.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Keegan demonstrates his tendencies towards controlling people
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:45:00 GMT

In article <fgj1cjg@rpi.edu> 
keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Since you oppose the creation of a moderated abortion newsgroup,
>> which would not allow you to harass Ms. Bartley or any other
>> woman, what do you care?  

> i wanted to see if you would have the courage to admit
> that you rejected her offer 

I hadn't placed myself in a position of authority to either 
accept or reject her offer.  I simply proposed the newsgroup.
I didn't want to have any control over the selection of
a moderator.  

Your unwarranted assumption about my position reveals your 
tendencies towards controlling people.  

> and the honesty to admit
> whether or not you had even given her the courtesy of a reply.

I did reply.  It's not my fault that you're too stupid to
have read the reply. 


Doug Holtsinger
From: corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yeah! Slick Willie Won! Yeah!
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:52:05 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Nov5.161257.16911@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:

   All you Anti-Lifer's
           ^^^^^^^^^^

 What exactly is anti-life?  Is it like anti-matter? Do things like
plants die when anti-life enters the room?  Do people age more quickly
when anti-life is around?

    ( I use this wording because I have seen pro-lifers called
    anti-choicer's so turn-abouts fair play)

But people that are "pro-life" are "anti-choice" on abortion.  Your
analogy doesn't work.  Why not adopt "pro-abortion-rights" and
"anti-abortion-rights" if names bother you so much?

    do with it because both our senators are anti-choice and N.C. went to 
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^
thank you.

   Many feel that the War is over if FOCA is passed because what states feel
   will no longer be important. 

Some, not many.

   The War is not over we have just lost a battle. We may have to wait
   for another 4 years before another one as important as this one comes up again
   but hopefully Bill will screw up and we get a pro-life presidant with a few
   morals again

Clinton has morals.  The problem is that his ethics differ from yours.
That does not indicate that either is wrong, only that they are different.

Scott Safier                                   corwin+@cmu.edu
Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
        
member, T.S.A.K.C.  B0/1 f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++

"We do not have an anti-gay policy... The problems Boy Scouts are
having are with people trying to get in - the gay community, the
homosexuals, the atheists."
Burford Hill, Western Regional Director, Boy Scouts of America. 
5 June 1992, San Francisco Chronicle

"We don't necessarily discriminate.  We simply exclude certain types of
people."
   Lt. Col. Gerald Wellman, an ROTC instructor at the MIT,
   on the military's ban on gays
   Newsweek, May 25
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Victory is at hand for Pro-Choicers
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:19:59 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
# Why do you think the Congress dropped FOCA after Democratic leaders
# announced that they had almost enough votes to override a veto?
# (My guess: 1. They did not have the votes they thought they had.
# 2. They were afraid the public would learn just how extreme FOCA was,
# and that would have hurt Clinton's chances.)

Admittedly, I'm not on the distribution list for the Congressional
leadership's gossip loop, but let me take a guess anyway...

	Because `not enough votes to override a veto' combined with
	the President's highly believable promise to veto it means
	`not enough votes for it to pass?'

Both your guesses suck.  #1 is simply irrational -- no suprise there.
#2 is a conspiracy theory -- a dumb one at that.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``Democracy is the theory that the common 
| J H Woodyatt              |  people know what they want, and deserve to
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  get it good and hard.''
+---------------------------+                              -- H L Mencken

Newsgroups: talk.abortion