HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: A Hopeful Sign
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:47:36 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> Gosh, I feel so comfortable knowing that the state of Massachussetts
>>> has seen fit to lock up non-violent protesters for several years in
>>> already overcrowded prisons.                       ^^^^^^^

Nice try, Doug.  The _maximum_ sentence is 2.5 years.  Has anyone received
the maximum sentence, Doug?

>> Non-violent?  Yeah, right, Doug.

> Blocking an abortion clinic entrance is a non-violent form
> of protest.  It's really not much different from sitting in 
> the front of the bus.  

Except those sitting in the front of the bus aren't preventing people
from getting on or off the bus or moving to the rear.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
character, give him power."  -- Abraham Lincoln
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:32:23 GMT

In article <1ej185INNhtj@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <BxzDx5.IMu@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1ebjs2INNmmn@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>In article <BxuK2B.32F@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>>>In article <1e9108INNlmu@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>>What a woman has is the right to define how her physical
>>>body will or will not be used. 
>>>
>>>Which is precisely analogous and symetrical to a man's right to determine how
>>>his physical body will or will not be used.
>>
>>Either his body is used 40 hours a week to earn money or 
>>it is used 168 hours a week to pace a 10x10 room.
>
>You know, Don, it *IS* possible for people to have rational discussions in
>this newsgroup. 
>
>Why don't you pay close attention to a few and maybe you, too, can manage 
>it.  This tripe, above, isn't worthy of response!
>
>We don't have slavery in this country.  

"Pay child support or go to jail" sounds an awful lot like slavery to me.
What would you call it, Adrienne? How would you sugar-coat it?

>We don't force a man to work at some
>task, any task deemed by society to be productive, and take his money from
>him.  

Yes we do. It's done under the guise of "contempt" charges, but it happens
nevertheless.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:51:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.000433.5823@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) 
asserts:

}Kevin, every single one of us is a fertilized egg.  Some of us are just older
}than others.

Several MD's (including the chairman of a department here) would disagree
with you, especially where I am concerned.  They have the x-rays, scans,
etc. to back them up.  As a matter of fact, I imagine they would have 
trouble describing me as any type of egg, fertilized or otherwise.
Perhaps you meant to say "was" instead of "is."  I do not disagree that
some of us are older than others, however.  See, Suzanne and I can agree
on some things...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Why is Nykios AntiBible?
Keywords: slavery, pro-life
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:35:28 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

] In <1992Nov8.184806.26949@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
] >] A brief excerpt from his article, "Uncivil Liberties," which appeared
] >] in the March 1990 issue of _Crisis_, follows, closing this post.  
] >] 
] >] 	  Unless the anti-slavery principle holds true absolutely, other
] >] 	exceptions to it will also be possible.
] >] 	
] >] Peter Nyikos
] 
] 
] >Well its clear that this citation of yours is
] >intended to establish that you are AGAINST
] >biblical principles, and what the BIBLE has
] >to say about Slavery.
] 
] Moses led the Israelites out of slavery.  Paul sent a slave back to his
] master, but this master might well have been as kind to the slave as 
] though it had been his own child, no?  What conclusions am I supposed
] to draw from all this?
 

So YOU ADMIT that the Current US Government is DIRECTLY 
at war with the Bible!

] BTW the quote is from Alan Keyes, not me. 
 
So,

a. you posted it to support a position you agree with?

b. you posted it to add length to your post?

c. You posted this to Show the Connection between the
Satanists who are At War with GOD and the AntiAbortionKlique?

Which leaves us with the simple Questions:
 
Why are you at War with GOD? And why do YOU hate the Bible?
 
Will You REPENT of your SINS!

And Be SAVED!


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Little Miss Muffett, sat on a ToughtIt,
Eating her Kurds and Weighs, Along came a Spider,
and she drove off with the Neat Guy with a HOT CAR!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:27:51 GMT

In article <1eoo4uINN4go@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>Do you realize
>>that taking out a murder contract on one's lover or divorced spouse is in 
>>many ways _significantly_ less burdensome than paying 18+ years of child
>>support, and that a growing number of men are awakening to this reality,
>>and choosing to exercise that "option"? 
>
>I don't see how murdering the mother lessens the burden on the man.
>Hypothesizing that he's not caught, wouldn't it just further burden
>him with all the parenting responsibilities, both financial and 
>care-giving?

Only if he _asks_ for custody.

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:13:11 GMT

In article <1eqf4hINNikj@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.192808.662@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>absence of evidence is *not* evidence of absence.

>If only the "no evidence for foetal sentience" folks could realise that.

I'd hardly consider lacking the physical capability no evidence....

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:16:08 GMT

In <1992Nov10.162945.20099@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:

>In <nyikos.721347704@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>Maryland already had a law on the books STRONGER than FOCA.  What was
>>the point of putting the public through a referendum?

>I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Here's the history of the
>abortion situation in Maryland:

[pre-RvW history deleted]

>Last year, it appeared that Roe v. Wade would soon be overturned,
>and it was believed that the old law would once more take effect. The
>state government passed a bill which repealed the old law, and which
>created a new law which was equivalent to Roe v. Wade or FOCA.

Roe v. Wade is not equivalent to FOCA.

> (It
>most assuredly isn't "stronger" than FOCA).

Wrong.  FOCA does not allow fetal defects as a reason for abortion after
viability.  The Maryland law does.

> Pro-life organizations 
>started a petition drive to repeal the new law, and got enough signatures
>to force a referendum.

>The pro-lifers went on to say that pro-choicers should therefore
>vote to strike down the new law, and make the state legislature
>"get it right next time". Even if RvW were overturned, the old
>law would still be in place, and it was one of the most liberal
>in the country. [They left it to pro-choice organizations to
>tell everyone what this "liberal" law really was.]

They were in a dilemma about that: if they had published how liberal
the old law was, a lot of doctrinaire pro-lifers could not have stomached
voting for such a watered-down referendum.  It was bad enough in 
Arizona, where lots of pro-lifers abstained because the constitutional
amendment would have ALLOWED the legislature to pass laws granting
exceptions for assault rape and incest.  To all too many pro-lifers,
compromise is a dirty word.

>BTW, I haven't heard anyone say anything yet about the parental
>notification clause...it had an interesting twist. Instead of
>judicial bypass, it had physician bypass. This means that 
>notification could be waived by the doctor

read: the abortionist

> at the clinic. This
>seemed kind of insulting to me: I think that doctors will 
>already refuse to perform an abortion on a minor if she's 
>clearly out of her depth.

The law is insulting to me for the opposite reason: I have yet to
hear of an abortionist turning down a minor who wanted an abortion.
If Charles Don Hall knows of any cases, I'd be extremely interested.

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: Description of the Fetal Remains from an Abortion
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:14:32 GMT

Once again, with the permission of the poster, I
am forwarding one of the better answers to DOD's
fun and games in soc.singles.

Enjoy!

Diana

thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:

] In <1992Nov21.183937.8835@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] 
] >BTW, here's my new .signature, how do you like it?
] 
] If you send out that many bytes with every message you send, your
] news admins will probably pull the plug on you in a matter of days.
] And I'll be cheering.
] 
] Rob T
] --
] Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com
] "I get so tickled debunking bad personal philosophy." - Milquetoast


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Terrible. Close. Mind.
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:13:20 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 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: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <1er8g6INN2sk@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
># Brian Kendig
>#> Frank O'Dwyer
>#>#  Brian again
>#>#the ability to conceive of indirect solutions to
>#>#problems, the ability to use language, and so forth.
>#>
>#>These are measures of intelligence, not humanity.  There are lots of people
>#>who can't do either of the things you mention to any useful degree, and some
>#>of them are my colleagues :-)
>#
>#I disagree.  I've never heard of anyone whom I would call a 'person'
>#who wasn't capable of either of these two things.
>
>A person on a life support system might not be expected to do these things.

You wouldn't expect them to do it, but they have the capability.

>Don't you think it's a little unreasonable to expect a foetus to jump through
>intellectual hoops, when it lacks the experience and/or hardware needed
                                                         ========
Bingo - it can't, because it lacks the hardware.  That's very different
from a person who has the hardware, and the capability, but is not able
to exercise that capability at the moment (whether because they're asleep,
comatose, or whatever).
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: 23 Nov 92 21:44:01 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>M. Price>

>No.  I mean to say that _any_ assumption relating to the sentience or
>otherwise of a foetus is asinine.  Sentience as a criterion for foetal
>personhood is largely worthless, because we have no test for the existence of
>sentience in a foetus.  It is as unreasonable to expect a foetus to pass any
>test for sentience as it is to expect a computer without a display to
>draw fractals.

Here is a better one. It can be shown that an infant lacks sentience.
This would allow one to draw the conclusion that a fetus, an earlier
stage of developement, cannot be sentient either.

As for anyone who wishes to pose the asinine argument that a sentient
human being is an earlier stage of a dead human being, please note the
the fetus is still developing, whereas a person who is dying is no longer
doing so.

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.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: compromise
Date: 18 Nov 92 05:00:27 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1ebln8INNne5@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
#In article <nyikos.722027741@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#
##Still playing along with Adrienne's gag, eh?
#
#
#Well, this is a new one.
#
#Not "my system went down and I lost all replies".
#
#or "I didn't see that post"
#
#or "I'm sure she didn't mean it" 
#
#or "I was just joking"
#
#But "She did it.  Not me!  Mommy, she started it!"

Uh huh.  I like how you managed to enlist the aid of the entire
readership of talk.abortion, too.  "They're ganging up against
me!  She's making them."

I'm waiting to see his line to me - I wouldn't be surprised if
he used something as lame as, "They are so your words.  You posted
them this time, it doesn't matter who posted them first."  Of course,
he'd still have to explain why he deleted the attribution, but
that should be no problem - he can pick one of the above
excuses and use it again.

I wonder if he whines like this in class.

Susan
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ray fischer: lover of free and open communication
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:10:53 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>->In talk.abortion, keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

>ray appears to want much more than to simply ignore
>dodie's posts. he wants to know how to keep dodie from
>posting! the control freaks are all the same, you know.

It would be nice, but I don't really care, as everytime dodie posts,
he shows himself to be an ass. It must be his therapy in coming to terms
with his religious philosphy.

>do you want to imprison the women who have banned
>abortions, ron?

You should know better, jimmie.

>do you want to deny abortions to rape victims, ron?

Likewise for this question.

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
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:32:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.013356.38066@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>> Abortions can be legally performed all the way up to the
>>>> point of birth for virtually any reason.

>>> This is a lie.

>> No, it's the truth: abortions can be legally performed all the
>> way up to the point of birth for virtually any reason.

> Not in the 30 or so states which have restrictions against it.

The states can't enforce a law which is unconstitutional under
Roe v. Wade, because it would be challenged if the state attempted
to prosecute a doctor for performing a post-viability abortion: 

    "According  to  a  1979  survey  by  Jeanie  Rosoff  of  Planned
   Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute, 30 states have laws regu-
   lating third-trimester abortions. Some of these laws prohibit  or
   strictly  limit  abortions after the fetus has reached viability.
   Some require doctors to try to save  abortion  live-born  babies.
   Only a few states have both types of laws.

     In addition, a number of these laws have been found unconstitu-
   tional.   Others  obviously  would  be, in light of Supreme Court
   rulings. Virtually all the state laws would be subject to consti-
   tutional challenge if used as the basis of prosecution against an
   individual doctor."

      Abortion: The Dreaded Complication, PART II
      Originally appearing in The Philadelphia Inquirer, August 2, 1981
      by Liz Jeffries and Rick Edmonds
      Reprinted in The Congressional Record, April 21, 1986, S 4621

>> BTW, are you going to send threatening e-mail to my system
>> administrators for this post?

> Why would I do that, Dougie?  I've never sent threatening e-mail to
> *anyone's* system administrator.

Sure you have, you just sent some threatening e-mail to my
system administrators today, and they sent me a copy of it.
I just posted it to talk.abortion under the subject line
"Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmins".

>Larry Margolis


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 16:20:52 GMT

In article <1ej3c6INNib1@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>Will and me:
>
>>Excuse me, please, but it was *not* myself or Don who made the claim that the
>>issue of men paying child support is connected with abortion being legal.  So
>>I say again - it falls upon the person who made that claim, to prove it.

>Well, I asked Don, on this net.  And he said he'd be perfectly happy to use
>his vote as blackmail.

Adrienne, this is getting tiresome.

Again, you are a liar.

I realize you like to try to press buttons, but I am amazed at
your lack of subtlety.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Adoption is an answer
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:21:00 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <1992Nov17.162934.9510@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>ejhupper@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Huppertz) writes:

>|>For the last few years I have watched the anti-abortion factions

>Don't you mean Pro-Life or should we refer to Pro-Choice people as 
>anti-life. This is ridiculus...

I agree with you.  It is for that reason that no one here has ever 
heard me refer to anyone on the pro-life side as anything other than
pro-life.  Do I think this is the best label for them?  Actually,
the one unifying thing on the prolife side is opposition to abortion,
so "anti-abortion" would be more accurate.  But since they have chosen
to be referred to as "pro-life" that is how I refer to them.  I have
been called "pro-abort" several times however.  Arguing with this
only gets me classified as dishonest.

Question for people would call me "pro-abort"...

Do you believe in making swimming illegal?  No?  Tell me, how long
have you been "pro-drowning".  Don't try to deny it.  You are for
drowning.  I could cut the number of drownings drastically by making
it illegal to get in the water.  If you oppose me, you must be
"pro-drowning."  You want to see people drown.

I would like to see some respect on both sides of this, and at least
see members of each side refer to the other side by labels the referent
has chosen, if only because reduces unnecessary offensiveness and flames.

Joe


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:28:59 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:

>> The NT God judges us for our beliefs only, and
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Not at all.  This is only Protestant dogma.   For a fuller expression
> of Christianity, see Catholicism.

Well, Suzanne, you've demonstrated ignorance about a lot of things.  I'm
not surprised that you'd be ignorant about Protestantism too.  Many
Protestants understand that they are part of ONE holy and catholic (that
is, universal) church.  The reason that there are Protestants, Suzanne, is
that the heirarchy of the Catholic[tm] (not catholic) was guilty of a lot
of shady dealings in the early 16th century.

Who are you to judge what a fuller expression of Christianity might be?
As far as I'm concerned, Gordon Storga (professional atheist) or Steve
Novak (Forgach napalmer deluxe) dropping some change in a Salvation Army
bucket while Christmas shopping is a fuller expression of Christianity
than anything you've written here.

> It's really very simple folks:

It _always_ is for simpletons.  Sheesh.

[--Forgach catechism deleted--]

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
character, give him power."  -- Abraham Lincoln
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: "it's harder not to have sex now-days."
Summary: sex. sex.
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:35:57 GMT


 just thought of an episode of arsenio hall.
 (must be one of those acid flashbacks.)

 it was just after dantheman quayle came out
 with his abstinence idea. (well, the idea is not
 his. though in retrospect it would have been
 a good idea for his parents to come up with!)

 anyway, he got a lot of flak about the "just
 abstain" quote.

 on the arsenio show, arsenio interviewed audience
 members about this "just say no sex" solution.

 a few people said "it is just not realistic in
 this day and age."

 is this true? is the idea of no sexual intercourse
 until marriage ridiculous? is it impossible 
 "in this day and age."? 

 has the desire for sex grown over the last 
 couple of decades? should our parents not expect
 of us what was expected of them?

 gosh. i guess in about twenty more years people
 will just be having sex everywhere at all times.
 (evolving into madonna.) 

 and i suppose that 2000 years ago people had to
 be forced to have sex.

 anyway. just ranting and randoming.

 mark.

 "a planet where apes evolve from man?!?!"
	-mst3k


Newsgroups: talk.abortion