HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: O.R. protest against homosexuals on CSPAN
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 19:08:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.175741.12895@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott):
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>From article by cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio):
>>>>
>>>> "I don't think Christians should use birth control."  
>>>> 				--Randall Terry, Operation Rescue
>>>
>>>"Christians shouldn't use contraception or abortion."
>>>                                --Pope Paul VI
>>>Terry's in good company.
>> 
>>... 
>> Terry's also the venemous cretin who said that he saw the hand of
>> God in the AIDS epidemic.
>>...
>> --Frank
>
>A death months or years after diagnosis, with the opportunity for
>rethinking one's life and turning to Christ that that time allows,
>is definintely far more merciful than a sudden quick death without
>the opportunity to set one's house in order.

You know something Suxanne?  Sometimes I think you're like Darcy, and post
your shit to the net so that people will beat up on you.

And then you post things like this.  I know of several shrinks who would
*love* to have you as their patient.

>
>We're all gonna die some day.  The only difference between an
>AIDS patient and a non-AIDS patient is that the AIDS patient must
>confront his/her mortality, while the rest of us may foolishly
>ignore ours at our own peril.

So how come water evaporates, Suxanne?

--
=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???=
= "Love can break your heart." =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 07:56:08 GMT

brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes ...
>But you're right, it would be costly, and I realized that before I
>even posted the above.  But let's not give up on this road yet.  Every
>time I wrestle with the abortion issue, I always end up concluding
>that a unilateral decision one way or the other isn't ever gonna be
>final.  If pro-life and pro-choice can't agree, we can at least come
>up with a third option that would make abortion completely unnecessary.

You know, I've always been mistrusting of those who are too free with
MY money, and when they are also conservatives who profess to be
concerned with limiting government involvement and taxes, my credulity 
gets stretched to the breaking point, and words like "hypocrite" start 
to come to mind.

Now, while not all of the above characterizations may be entirely
correct for _you_, they do tend to hold for most conservatives.  
And should you really be that willing to spend your own money to 
solve the abortion problem, there are many more immediate and useful 
ways you might spend it.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Date: 27 Jan 93 02:34:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1993Jan26.222122.26394@ncsu.edu>,
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1993Jan26.152124.8182@seachg.uucp>
>chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>> [Pro-lifers] want to tell others what to do.

>Pro-choicers want to tell others what to do.  They want to
>tell certain human beings that they must die.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean we want to kill them. Doogie, when
someone tells you to "f--- off and die", they don't mean it
literally.

And as for the z/e/f, well, you still haven't shown that
it is a human being. I'll just write this off to more
emotinalism on your part.

[stuff deleted]

>Just about every pro-choicer that I've met on talk.abortion supports
>third trimester abortion-on-demand.  Some pro-choicers have said that
>a person can't be pro-choice unless they oppose third-trimester abortion
>restrictions.

"Every" or "some", Doogie? I seem to remember that E. Elizabeth
Bartley is fiercely pro-choice up until the third trimester.
Same with me, although I'm undecided about third-trimester
abortions myself. In any case, trying to create a monolithic
movement out of the diverse pro-choice individuals here would
be like lumping you, Kaldis, PHoney, Chaney, and Suze together
and calling you "the t.a pro-life movement".
-- 
David A. Tepper '94
datepper@phoenix.princeton.edu
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The ongoing jokes on talk.abortion
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:56:26 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

dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
-> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
-> >the least he could have done was credit me at the
-> >originator of his propeller beanie.
->  
-> Hey if credit is to be handed out, lets not forget why the 
-> little fool was running around his computer room with the
-> propeller beanie on.  

good point. what a fond memory it is too. i'll bed
there are readers who don't know. perhaps you should
tell them.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: Re: Something's Missing!?
Originator: jjprice@c00075-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:30:28 GMT


In article <1993Jan20.112917.14151@wam.umd.edu>, judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- now with home login) writes:
|>What: <1993Jan20.003024.29601@ncsu.edu>
|>Who:  jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
|>
|>>|> = cs225b26@eng-nxt09.cso.uiuc.edu (cs225 student)
|>-----------------------------------------------------------
|> [... bandwidthectomy ...]
|>>|>       It seems to me that the last person to challenge the authority and  
|>>|>the omnipotence of God (i.e. our dear friend St. Lucifer) got a one way  
|>>|>ticket on the Quad bus to hell.
|>>
|>>Before anyone flames this....remember God is forgiving if you just ask for
|>>forgiveness....Just because someone made a mistake is no reason to condemn
|>>then. This guy has the right idea but is expressing it entirely wrong...
|>>He is using the fire/brimstone/watch out approach that is wrong.
|>>You need to realize that God is forgiving and loving......
|>
|>Your approach doesn't sit any easier, I'm afraid.  Why should I ask for
|>forgiveness for something I feel isn't wrong?  Seems to me that you are
|>also using the "fire/brimstone/watch out" approach.  If God is so forgiving,
|>God will understand my reasons for the choices I make in life.  If I
|>am to be damned anyway, I dispute that God is really so "forgiving."

Of course he will understand the choices you made. You may believe that
they are right but if in fact they are wrong it does not change the fact that
you sined even if you felt that you were in the right. I could go out
and shoot someone and feel that I was perfectly right to do so that does
not make it right.If you do something wrong and refuse to admit it or
you do something wrong and refuse to admit its wrong they are the same thing 
its up to God to decide what is wrong.

He was saying just think about where you will end up before you do it. I am
saying that even if you have goofed you can always admit you're wrong and
seek forgiveness but if you don't think your wrong you won't seek it will
you.

The fact is you can't be damned anyway because God will forgive you if
you ask.
-- 
-Jeffrey Price
_____________________________________________________________________
| "When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were |
|  able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not  |
|  to go also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with  |
|  him to the station?"                                              |
| "OBJECTION: That question ought to be taken out and shot!!"        |
|____________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Will the Randall Terriers start to bite?
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:15:28 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In <C1AAnM.99J@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
>The next Big Event in the never-ending controvesy over abortion will be
>the passage of the FOCA. If (actually when) then happens, what will the
>active anti-aborts do? Will they reveal their true colors and embark on a
>compaign of bombing and burning abortion clinics? Will they begin the
>overt harassment of doctors and other medical personel who partake in
>abortions?

Be aware:  Operation Oppress-You has denoted February as "No Place To
Hide" Month.  Their charter is to target doctors and beseige them at
their homes.

Sigh.

--Teddi
------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Interesting Point
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 04:56:52 GMT

casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
] 
] Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of 
] an individual to use public money for their children to attend the school 
] private or public of their choice.
] 
]                                 Craig


p1: I presume that your position here is that
supporting state sponsored murder is ok for
reasons of state, and that this is NOT a
violation of being "proLife"????

p2: are you talking about all those EVIL NASTY
folks who do not wish to 

	2.1: Have State Sponsored Religious Institutions?

	2.2: Support Racist Segregationalist Policies
	masking themselves as "educational alternatives"?????


ciao
drieux

ps: or did I miss your intended group of BadPeople.....


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
and they may not be connected.....
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: forgery, by PHoney
Date: 22 Jan 93 01:57:06 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

poor PHoney, he's still denying his smearing of
adrienne and linking her to forgery. i suppose the
not-so-bright git thinks that if he stonewalls it
long enough, it'll just go away.

it won't.

and it seems to me a good idea to repost PHoney's
original screwup in it's entirety so he can't claim
that he's the victim of selective editing.

here it is.  enjoy ......

=======begin included post==========

>From talk.abortion Tue Oct 27 08:01:21 1992
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Information on the Common Ground initiative
Keywords: Common Ground
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:46:33 GMT

<1993Jan26.042421.29379@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> (The_Doge) writes:
> Common Ground is a joint effort of Reproductive Health Services
> (a local provider of abortion, family planning, and other gynecological
> services such as pap smears and so on) and some members of Missouri Right
> to Life (Loretta Wagner is the head of this organization, I believe).  

Loretto Wagner (romance language conventions be damned! :)) retired
from her leadership position last year.  I do not know the
name of her successor.  Loretto Wagner is still active.  According
to local news sources, she organized the Missouri busses to the
March for Life in Washington, D.C. last week.

> If you'd like more information on Common Ground and its activities, I'm told
>that you can contact Jean Cavender at RHS here in St. Louis, 314-367-0300.

Thanks for the info.

-- 
|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: graveyard visit?
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:50:12 GMT

From article by patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey):
> 
> --PLH, glad I've *got* a life

Yeah, you've got yours.  All the unborn babies can go down the toilet.
From: brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 26 Jan 1993 19:27:37 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu


Steve Adams writes:

> Paul Brinkley writes:

>>...This is why I sought to moderate Suzanne's and Steve's arguments.  Suzanne
>>made abortion seem horrible by linking it to the Holocaust; Steve argued
>>that abortion is quite mild in comparison to it.  In a way, both were right.
>>In a way, both were wrong.  I hoped to point out these ways, and in the
>>process bring the emotion out of it.
>
>Hmm.  I don't think this is what I meant.  I pointed out the difference in
>the two situations.  One of them was a concerted effort by one man (or a
>small group of people) to kill off entire classes of people.  The other is
>millions of individual decisions.

That's a whoops on my part.  You're right; I remember you saying that.  Sorry
'bout the mix-up...

>I don't like either one, being that I object to abortion on personal
>religious grounds, but each abortion is a personal decision made by the
>woman.  There is no single person, or small group of persons, forcing
>abortions on anyone.  And as a supporter of liberty, I can't deny a woman
>the right to control her own body.

I see what you mean, of course.  If this was just so much cancerous tissue,
then for me to say she can't remove it would be ludicrous.  I, on the other
hand, am still convinced that it's a human life, and so I have no choice but
to vote in favor of the child for the present.

Paul Brinkley
brinkley@cs.utexas.edu
Pro-Thought Advocate
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life begins at ...
Date: 27 Jan 93 07:41:49 GMT
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California

Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) says:
>>Just what is an "individual life" supposed to be?
>
>I kind of thought it was self-evident.  For example, every person on this
>planet lives his own individual life.  The term seems to be necessary, now,
>to mark the difference from human life as a whole (or as a continuum).

Self-evident like, say, the flatness of the earth?  What does it mean,
to live an individual life?  Barring very few hermits I don't don't of
any true individuals.  Perhaps you have a different notion of
independence?

>When talking about 'life' in the sense of a continuum, it's possible to say
>that life has no beginning and no end.  An individual's life does, and
>the pro-life crowd feels that this beginning and this ending are coming
>way, way too close together sometimes...

What is an "individual"?  Even at the death of most of the cells in a
particular body, life continues even in that body.  Sure, you might
argue that the "person" has "died", but then that begs the question of
just what _is_ a person.

All of which leads into a philosophical rats-nest, and explains why
philosophers don't enjoy more popularity.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:04:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.145214.17893@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> Kaflowitz, look at the quote above.  Read it carefully.  I see
> Ms. Garvin suggesting that the *incidence* of illegal abortion
> in 1860 has "something to do" with the ruling in Roe v. Wade in
> 1973.  Look at the Subject line which Ms. Garvin wrote.  It mentions 
> "incidence".  Throughout this entire thread, Ms. Garvin has not 
> even mentioned the relative dangers of abortion in 1860 and 1973.   
> That subject was not raised in this thread until now.  You're doing
> a piss poor job of helping Ms. Garvin back-pedal from her earlier
> suggestion. 


Actually, this posting of your's suggests that I have done an
excellent job of showing you up for a hair-splitting ninny
who is just arguing for no other purpose than to shout "nah nah"
and try to make someone else look bad.  The entire thread
and its context show what the discussion was about.  Complaining
that the word "incidence" makes the entire thread mean something
else is just so much gamesmanship.  When taken in context,
her use of the word "incidence" indicates that she wasn't
using it to mean "the rate of occurrence," but one of its
other meanings.  I leave it as an exercise for the reader to
determine which other meaning was intended.  I leave it as
an exercise for Reverend Holtsinger to jerk around with what
is said and try to change its meaning to amuse homself, like
a monkey twisting a rubber toy.

Dean Kaflowitz

"Yeah, bringing that Amazon enclave of women to America would just 
spoil everything.  I'd prefer to have them stay in the Amazon, 
so that I could go live them there." - Reverend Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:10:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.200741.9018@hobbes.kzoo.edu>,
k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>Ted, do you honestly believe that anyone--ANYONE--thinks abortion is a
>good thing?  That anyone wants _more_ abortions to occur?  That
>pro-choicers, upon hearing about an abortion, think "oh, good,
>that fetus was killed, that's great"?

>If you so think, I am amazed beyond words at your self-delusion.

Two words, Jamie: Robert Kolker.
-- 
David A. Tepper '94
datepper@phoenix.princeton.edu
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58253 talk.politics.misc:70113 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13998 alt.rush-limbaugh:15304 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show:224 talk.religion.misc:27696
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:33:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1993Jan24.183337.5050@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.162221.9374@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>In article <casivils.727566210@node_508ba> casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
>>>Tit for Tat,
>>>
>>>Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of 
>>>an individual to use public money for their children to attend the school 
>>>private or public of their choice.
>>>
>>>                                Craig
>>
>>Oh come on!  This quiz is too easy.  The answer is because when they 
>>say choice, they don't mean choice...they mean abortion.
>>
>>You can tell that this is true by the was "pro-choicers" react any 
>>time anyone tries to do anything that might decrease the number of 
>>abortions that occur.
>>
>Hardly. Pro-Choicers get upset when you try to do things to restrict a
>womans choices. If you would care to attempt something to reduce the
>*need* for abortions, instead of just trying to impose your will on
>others by passing laws restricting the availability of *all* options,
>you won't find much opposition.
>Of course, addressing the causes of abortion means you're going to
>have to do some serious sex education, contraceptive education, and
>research into more effective, cheaper, and easier to use
>contraceptives. You'll find opposition there. From the Pro-Life
>factions, of course.
>Sorry to see you've flunked a quiz which 'is too easy'. Says something
>about you, I guess.

Thanks for the personal attack.  I needed one this morning.

Ted

-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- abort, retry, ignore, fail, rant, scream, give up?)
Subject: Stand Up, Sit Down, Fight Fight Fight!
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force, Washington, D.C.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 11:50:55 GMT

What: <1993Jan25.214847.3415@wdl.loral.com>
Who:  bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com [James Woodyatt]

>I was in Washington D.C. over the weekend.  I spent most of my time
>with an old friend volunteering for clinic defense with WACDTF
>(Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force) against Operation Rescue's
>`Capital [sic] Rescue' offensive.

Hey!  You were there?  Why didn't ya say hi??  I was the goofy one with
the camera. :-)

>WACTDF had their heads
>on straight. 

I'll forward your good review to our planners.  They felt a bit beat
up on after everything was over so I'm sure they'll appreciate it!

-- Jay T Stein, a screwhead in the middle. :)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Thank You Craig
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:45:48 GMT

casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
] In <1993Jan21.045652.24305@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] 
] >casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
] >] 
] >] Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of 
] >] an individual to use public money for their children to attend the school 
] >] private or public of their choice.
] >] 
] >]                                 Craig
] 
] 
] >p1: I presume that your position here is that
] >supporting state sponsored murder is ok for
] >reasons of state, and that this is NOT a
] >violation of being "proLife"????
] 
] >p2: are you talking about all those EVIL NASTY
] >folks who do not wish to 

Thank You craig for clearing up the Matter on
the ProLife Position on State Sponsored Murders.

ciao
drieux


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
and they may not be connected..... 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion