HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Question for Eric Gorr
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:22:52 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article <Bv7u1z.LEp.2@cs.cmu.edu>, by garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):
>> 
>> The protesters at the local women's clinics spend a good
>> part of their time praying at the top of their voices for
>> various things - an end to all abortions, conversion for
>> all who are not supporting them, etc.  Do you think that
>> there is Biblical support for this activity?
>
>
>Of course.   It's called "praying for one's enemies".
>
Do you read the Bible?  I can't believe you do.  Try this:

[Matthew 6, NIV]

  "(5)And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to
   pray standing in the synagogus and on the street corners to be seen
   by men.  I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.
   (6)But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to
   your Father, who is unseen.  Then your Father, who sees what is done
   in secret, will reward you.  (7)And when you pray, do not keep on
   babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their
   many words.  (8)Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need
   before you ask him. (continues with the Lord's Prayer)."

So, Ms. Forgach, do you read the Bible?  You keep bringing up praying, God
and religion, but continually ignore the commands given you by Jesus
Christ.

Remember, you have your reward in full.  Me?  I'll continue praying
quietly, in secret.  

BTW, the above applies to anyone screaming for school prayer, too.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 02:39:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.212840.11036@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> In article <1992Sep26.052443.12902@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> >Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
> 
> I heard Cthulhu is a religion, Elizabeth. Making one of them a President
> would horrendously endanger the First Amendment.

No, clueless twit.  But I do hope you see the light
and ask Chthulhu to enter you rlife and fill it with all
the things he can fill it with.

And if ministers and such can run for president, then why
not minor deities?  Why vote for a mouthpiece when you can
have a mouth?

Dean Kaflowitz
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: KEEP ABORTION AND BANK ROBBERY SAFE AND LEGAL!! (was rights and responsibilities
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:10:36 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Sep29.181833.3969@athena.cs.uga.edu> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:

[DOD's repeat of his bank robber analogy deleted]

#There's an interesting point here.  I remember reading an essay by a man
#named Schaeffer on the need to legalize rape so that there would no longer
#be back alley rapes.  Hospitals would create rape floors where a woman could
#go and be attacked by a man, all the while being monitered by government
#officials.  The concept  is sick, but the point is well made.

Uh huh.  The point is well made if you equate a rapist's sick
pleasures and a woman's life.  

Pro-force men seem to love to equate abortion and rape.  I think
that some of them resent the fact that the woman is in control
of the abortion decision, and therefore they create analogies 
that remove all control from her.

Would that man's first name be "Francis" by any chance?

Susan
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Just Give Up Now, Welch.
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:22:28 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:

>No, I have a funnier one than that:

>There are no unborn people, there are fetuses,
>or people not yet born (and hence not real).

Did I really say this, or is there some context missing here? (I know
there is, but let's let Frank come up with the original typed post.
After all, he's claiming I said this.)

>Ron, can we talk?

Absolutely. I'm not over there holding my hand over your mouth, am I?
(Or tying up your hands, in this case.)

>The fetus is real, O.K.?

Did you see anywhere that I said a fetus is not real? Pleasse post where
I claim a fetus is imaginary.

>And um, is "not yet born people" _very_ different from "unborn people", Ron?
>Tell us again, which ones are real ones, and which are just figments of the wom
>b??

Actually your right, there are no people not yet born, only fetuses.

>This is nearly as good as "the fetus is a fish"!

Who said the fetus is a fish? Resembles a fish, in some ways, is a whole
lot different than being a fish. Try  again Frank. Have fun....

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: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Abortion related mortality
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:24:07 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon



He'll probably post the CDC figures on abortion deaths before Roe,
and claim that they represent the real number of women who died
from complications following illegal abortions.  Many pro-
forcers cite this statistic and claim that it's accurate while
at the same time claiming that current CDC figures on deaths
from legal abortions are not accurate.  They claim that the
CDC correctly found the cause of death in each case, even though
it was highly likely that the women themselves, their doctors,
or their families went to great lengths to conceal the true
cause of death.  (At the same time, they claim that clinics
are able to conceal abortion related deaths today with ease.)

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
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: Tue, 29 Sep 92 22:37:44 GMT


P
People have been trying to convince me that Nyikos is not
who he claims to be - that is, that the person posting from
Nyikos' account is actually a rather slow graduate student.
I'd been skeptical.

This little love-fest with Dennis, though, leaves me
less skeptical.  I doubt that a sane man of Nyikos'
years would indulge in such behavior.

I know, though, that any further claims from Nyikos
about his respect for women and his desire for serious
discussion will be met with a copy of this article.

Susan

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:38711 alt.abortion.inequity:4063 alt.birthright:471
From: haan35681@oswego.oswego.EDU (EDWARD G. FARRELL)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:21:14 GMT
Organization: oswego state

In article <1992Sep25.005011.3215@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep25.003312.4297@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> >>"pro-aborts"?  Don't be a git.
> >
> >I'm not. That's why I called them that. They can't be pro-choice
> >because marijuana is a choice, too, but they don't take a position on
> >it. Then what are they pro? Abortion!  
> I do take a position on marijuana legalization, sir.
> 
> I'm pro-marijuana-legalization. I would therefore appreciate it if you
> would call me pro-choice.
> 
> BTW, Mr. Chaney. Do you eat meat? Animals are life...By your logic,
> you must not be pro-life.
> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 
> -- 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
> Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
>    "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
> 
> 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 19:17:00 GMT

<BvCx5J.7JE@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) said:
>In <ca_pchb.boserj@netcom.com> boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser) writes:
>>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>>>	To some women, pregnancy is a wonderful thing - the creation of
>>>life - something sacred. To others it is an inconvenience. 
>>And to others, it is life-threatening, and can destroy their financial,
>>social, and planned futures.  The freedom of women to grow in this
>>society is tied directly to their freedom to choose where their lives
>>will go, on an individual basis.
>
>	So if a woman runs into a firm where the person in charge of
>hiring is a sexist, she has the right to kill him?

Of course not.

>	Of course not. I am not looking to restrict anyone's freedom by
>saying that abortion should be illegal any more than I am trying to
>restrict someone's freedom by saying murder should be illegal. Why do you
>INSIST on turning this into a woman's rights issue?? It simply is not.

Hmmm.  I don't see many men getting pregnant and being told that they have
to remain pregnant.  Do you?

>Unborn children are being killed. They have done nothing wrong. 

I see the problem.  Let me assure you that there is no such thing as an
'unborn child'.  You see, your worries are for nothing.  Feel better now?

However, if you were speaking of fetuses then I disagree: a fetus has done
something 'wrong' if is inside the body cavity of a woman that does not
want it there.  Like a virus that ends up in your body - it may not have
conciously decided to enter your body, but you are within your rights to
kill it, or remove it (currently not possible).

>                                                                They
>have no way of defending themselves. I want this to stop. How on
>earth can you call that a woman's rights issue? It is an unborn
>children's rights issue.

If fetuses were being hatched from eggs or conceived in test tubes then
you might have a case.  But they aren't.  They incubate inside of a
woman's body.  Some women find this wonderful, others are willing to put
up with it.  For others it is the worst thing that could have happened to
them.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
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: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 05:00:14 GMT

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

>In <1992Sep27.054945.28826@sfu.ca> probst@fraser.sfu.ca (Scott Probst) writes:

>>In article <9tgz#dh@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>
>>>>I question your sincerity here.  I invite readers to ask themselves 
>>>>whether they'd ever seen a fetal pig, or a picture of one
>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>yes. dozens. and a dead adult one, fresh-killed for food. and a dead
>>calf, dragged out of its mother by me and two others with our hands. and
>>lots of other things. what of it?

>Like so many people, you are replying to a cut-off question, and I can't
>say much for people that will cut off a question like this.

Nyikos, our own Paragon of Intellectual Honesty.

>As long as we have this problem, let me ask two questions.

>1. Has anyone seen a fetal pig in a comparative anatomy lab, or a picture
>of one used for dissection in comparative anatomy courses, that looked
>like anything but a pig?

I may be WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY out on a limb here, but I'd venture to
guess that most people have never, ever, seen a fetal pig.  But
since you imply that you have, I'll respond with a question for you.

1.  Have you ever seen a pig zygote that was remotely recognizable
as a pig?

>2. Has anyone come up where a context where the fetus of a pig was called
>anything but a fetal pig?
                =========
>What started this all was a satirical statement of mine:

>**** Fetal pigs is pigs, but fetal humans is only potentially human. ***
                    ====

Intellectual honesty indeed.

                             -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: using clinical terms (was Re: Attention!)
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 14:20:27 GMT

In <+6czbh_@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
In <1992Sep23.200554.21315@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>

> [bill's clinical questions re denial deleted]
> 
> i suggest, bill, that you can find the answers to your
> questions in your old reference books. given some
> of the things you've written in this and related threads,
> you might really want to perform that exercise.

Since you're unwilling to demonstrate that you know anything
at all about the concept of denial, it would be more honest
of you to simply say so, rather than avoid the questions.  (Or 
you *could* make a trip to the library...)

>> If you can't answer these questions, do you think
>> it advisable to pretend to identify this mechanism 
>> in others?  I would say no.  What do you say?
>
> i'd say i'm pretty comfortable expressing opinions
> about my observations. 

Are you equally as comfortable when informed that you've
misinterpreted your observations? 

Bill
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos' Credentials
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:32:05 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) auditions for Non-
Sequitur Dinner Theatre:
> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

>> My comment here would be that excellence in a field does not necessarily
>> translate into excellence in another field, even though there may be a
>> few skills that are shared between the two fields.

> And you're real skilled at religious bigotry, but nothing else that
> is of any value to humanity.  Remember that insult against Catholics
> re "Vatican Rag"?

You mean that song that was written by a Catholic, Tom Lehrer?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:22:24 GMT

In article <6648@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>Chaney lost posting privileges during the flap that ensued
>when Scott Roby exposed his fraud.  PoorOldChaney has never
>been able to explain why he was punished if the account, in
>fact, belonged to someone else.  

Just wanted to note that I never requested any action to be 
taken by Chaney's sysadmin (that's not my style).

By the way, Susan, lovely summary of Chaney unexplainables!



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dchapman@well.sf.ca.us (Dave Chapman)
Subject: Ban Birth Control Pills
Summary: California Senate Race
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 04:16:21 GMT

In article <malcolm.717204000@grenada> malcolm@grenada.ign.island.COM (Malcolm Blanchard) writes:

>dchapman@well.sf.ca.us (Dave Chapman) writes:
>
>
>>   Many of Bruce Herschensohn's supporters on the
>>far right regard banning abortion as the first step.
>>Once that has been accomplished, they would next make
>>birth control pills illegal.

>P.S. My post is a joke, I hope Mr. Chapman's was also.

Sorry, this is serious.  As a matter of fact, I think that
Mr. Herschensohn would ban oral steroid contraceptives,
given a more right-thinking electorate.

The logic is compelling, if you are right-to-life:
Birth control pills prevent a fertilized egg from implanting
on the uterine wall.  A woman using the pill therefore
has a "mini-abortion" every month.  The real hard-core
anti-abortion people want to ban the pill, and I think
that Bruce agrees.

>    Many of Barbara Boxer's supporters on the
>far left regard banning school prayer as the first step.
>Once that has been accomplished, they would next make
>religion illegal.

Nah, Barb wouldn't ban school prayer.  She'd just require
equal time for the Goddess.  :-)

-dave

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: Overpeck's problems  (Was: Re: Have you herd about the ram?)
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: Tue, 29 Sep 92 04:15:32 GMT

In article <1a86o6INN6q7@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writ
s:
>---
>sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>|I'd suggest that you seek some real help instead of confessing
>|your shortcomings in talk.abortion, Overpeck.  I'm really
>|not qualified to tell you why the "jokes" you feel compelled
>|to repeat in this newsgroup all have sexist overtones.  I
>|think you should see your therapist, and ask *him*.
>
>You know, I've often felt Overpeck to be a twit.  But I'm 
>suprised to find he's the only major participant in this 
>thread who doesn't look like a twittering fool.

You know, I've always felt that someone who spends weeks and
thousands of lines of typing flaming someone else for 
one sentence looks like a twittering fool, particularly
when that is their only contribution to the newsgroup.

>I wish I could killfile this thread & Chaneyflames.
>They're repetitious & boring wastes of k key clicks.

Gosh, I thought that someone who talked about their killfile
as much as you do would surely have mastered putting
threads and replies to specific posters in it by now.

Why don't you add me to it now and spare yourself further
"boredom?"  I'm sure that I'll end up on the same side
of an argument as Keegan again someday.  

Susan,
who is here to enjoy herself, not to entertain others
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:22:43 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>What's so emotional about the fact that the unborn is, indeed, human life?

No more so than a tumor? Well, nothing then. If you're implying that
it is a person, as you are, then it becomes an emotional appeal.

BTW, wrt your previous post, a fetus is human, and killing it is not
killing a human being (person sense). Killing a fetus is not equivalent,
say, to killing a 20 y-o man. Do you see the difference here?
As for de-personifying, why is this a problem for you? Why must you
personify a fetus? Does it have any of the characteristics that defines
a person?

>talk.abortion is slowly getting tiresome...

Thanks to morons like you, with your constant drivel and nothing concrete
to say, yes it is.

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: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Attention!
Date: 4 Oct 92 15:32:47 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct03.153559.123133@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
> In  <1992Oct3.064647.5038@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> >
> > Am I supposed to apologize for being a White Anglo-Saxon Male, is that it,
> > Dean?  [...]
> 
> Where did he suggest that?  Nobody should be expected to apologize for
> what they have no control over.  I believe that the point was that,
> unless you've lived your life as a victim of racism, you're unlikely

Actually, I do think he should apologize for being a White Anglo-Saxon
Male.  I think he should apologize to all the other White Anglo-Saxon
Males for ebing such an embarrassment to White Anglo-Saxon Males.
I think if I were a White Anglo-Saxon Male I would be forced, in
good conscience, to post something on the order of "I am really
sorry Kevin Darcy is a White Anglo-Saxon Male.  Please don't
judge us all by the ignorance of this one."

Dean Kaflowitz
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Mon,  5 Oct 1992 11:13:33 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 5-Oct-92 Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR
PRO-C.. Brian Kendig@netcom.com (1207)

> I tried to respond to "The Rink"'s article point-by-point, but there
> was just too much to handle.

> So I tried to respond to it issue-by-issue, but I still felt inundated
> by it.

> I give up.  The article is full of blatant assertions, inaccurate
> figures, heavily biased opinions, and emotional ploys.  


I agree with Mr. Kendig here.  I just hope that talk.abortion does not
scanned-materials.abortion.

Michael Loomis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:54:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.164717.18973@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.235939.51539@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
><margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>> 
>> In  <1992Sep24.011944.8732@nntp.uoregon.edu>  eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>> > In article <1992Sep23.040334.27394@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
>> > > I think it's rather ridiculous to
>> > > consider a uni-cellular organism to be a person, but since you choose
>> > > to define it that way arbitrarily, and don't seem interested in
>> > > discussing it, I see no point in going around in circles again.
>> >
>> > I am willing to discuss it.  Ask me questions, demonstrate how my
>> > definitions don't make any sense, etc...no meaningful attempt has yet been
>> > made...
>> 
>> See the first part of what I quoted.  I think it's ridiculous to consider
>> a fertilized egg to be a person.
>
>
>It is not arbitrary - is the start of human life.  Do you disagree?  Why?
>

Yes I disagree.  Conception is NOT the start of human life.  Human life
began a very long time ago.  Surely you're not so egocentric or naive to
dispute this.   Conception is the beginning of a pregnancy.  A human life
begins then, too, but not necessarily an individual human life, as identical
twins split AFTER conception.

Jennifer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion