HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS AND PROLIFERS IS BIGOTED
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 22:27:03 GMT

<1992Jul27.171037.6455@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) said:
>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><1992Jul9.155124.24608@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) said:
>>>><1992Jul7.192300.11581@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>
>>>>jfh@greenber.austin.ibm.com (John F Haugh II) writes:
>>>So, if you are religious, and you find out that you are homosexual/bisexual,
>>>you can be part of a GBL organization, be vocal for GBL rights, even be
>>>attacted to a person of your same sex. However, you should marry someone
>>>of the opposite sex and have sex with your wife/husband only. Then, you are
>>>saved. Right???
>
>>What strikes me as being extremely hypocritical of these religious folks
>>is that their "savior" told them that even thinking sinful thoughts is the
>>same as committing them (see Sermon on the Mount).  Yet they say it's ok
>>to have homosexual thoughts, just don't act on them.
>
>>The stench of hypocrisy gets stronger everyday.
>
>I'll explain what the Church teaches regarding the sinfulness of a person's
>thoughts. 

First, why should the Church tell you what is right and wrong?
Second, why does what the Church teach differ from what Jesus taught?
Third, given this inconsistency, which do you believe and follow: Jesus or
the Church?

>          The Church understands that there is a distinction between thoughts
>which a person does and does not approve of. If the action someone
>is thinking of is sinful, but that person derives no pleasure in it, and 
>struggles to reject it, then no sin is committed. 

Jesus didn't say this.  This sounds like heresy to me.

>                                                  The Church has always
>taught that such temptation is to be avoided, but is not in itself sinful.

Then they are at odds with Jesus.

>When the individual consents to the sinful idea in his head, and derives
>pleasure in thinking about it, then he has committed the sin that Jesus
>spoke of when saying that "the man who lusts in his heart has already
>committed adultery." 

In the Churches liberal interpretation.

>                     If someone is pleased with homosexual thoughts, then
>that person has most certainly committed sin. If he does not accept them,
>then they remain a temptation with which that person must struggle. There
>is no hypocrisy to be found here.

You might want to reread the Sermon on the Mount *yourself*.


Gordon
-- 
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: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: A comment on RvW and A&I
Keywords: roe wade abortion autonomy sex
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:46:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.004811.22058@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> 
tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa) writes:

>In article <1992Jul28.163715.12871@ncsu.edu> (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Why doesn't a fetus have the right to bodily autonomy?

> ( Hoo boy, not again)  Because it hasn't been born.  

Blatant assertion. I would be equally justified in asserting that
fetuses should have the right to life because they are members of
the species Homo Sapiens.  


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Fetal Tissue Issue
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 11:46:17 GMT

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
] knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
] 
] >Steve Adams, I don't understand why fetal testing is different that corpse
] >testing. If the fetus is dead, what is the problem? Do you find testing on
] >dead adults reprehensable? There is much to be gained by studying and using
] >the tissue of a dead fetus that would otherwise rot.
] 
] My problem with deciding how I feel on this is the possible ramifications.
] Assume for a moment that fetal tissue is found to cure some horrendous
] disease.  Do you then support conception soley for provision of fetal
] tissue?  This creates lots of issues that I don't have any answers for...

Steven,

I think you are drafting a most bizarre notion of the worst case
scenario. We have, already, gone through the case wherein a family
has opted to have a child for the expressed purposes of being able
to 'cull organs' from the new born, once said child is old enough
to undergo the transplant surgery, to save the life of another child.

The intermediate stage 'nightmare' would be, most likely along
the line of advancing In vitro fertilization to allow for the
creation of fetal tissue that would be 'cultivated.' This sort of
a BioTech solution would be more effective, less time consuming
than a - forgive the pun - Labor Intensive operation.

The GlowingBrightLightOfScienceOnTheHorizon option would be that
presuming this research does establish the genetic connections,
then the revelation of those mechanisms could be synthetically
generated without needing any form of SpermOvumFanDango.

Allow me to drag you kicking and screaming into the Modern Age!

This is not the same world wherein the notion of developing
the vacinne for smallpoxs mandates the maintenance of MilkMaids,
merely as the means of manufacturing 'Cow Pox' toxins.

The Sole ScarryPart of your nightmare would be if the STATE
were to mandate that this or that person were obliged to 
generate fetii for financial gain.... A wonderful new improvement
on the basic 'WorkFare' notion, eh no?

ciao
drieux


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: sej5g@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Susan Elizabeth Juroff)
Subject: Re: Extra, extra! God expands punishment for AIDS! (WAS What *is* Homophobia)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:46:39 GMT

> Pathetic.  It must be embarrassing for intelligent Christians to put up
> with this slander of their god - you know, that a purported compassionate,
> loving being could possibly be such a cruel asshole.

It's only very annoying when people like this think that they
can talk for all Christians, not even considering that members
of our family are members of theirs.
 
It's downright heartbreaking when I read what the Pope has to
say about us.  It feels like my father is disowning me.

Fortunately, my Father knows better.

-->sej5g
--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: why the schools need to teach about sex: a sad example of ignorance
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:07:54 GMT

---
tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
|In <nti74do@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
|>tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
|>|You've made your choice before you're 
|>|pregnant.  If you can't live with that, don't have sex. period.
|>|end of discussion :-)

|[ a bunch deleted ]
|>So now you've learned something about sex.  Maybe you should
|>think about your statement above in the light of all this new
|>information.  Maybe you should rephrase, and say something like,
|>"If you can't live with [pregnancy], don't have intercourse
|>without using birth control.  period."

|I'll accept that.  The point I was attempting to make remains the
|same.  If you have sex, you have made your "choice" already.
|Grow up and be responsible for your own actions.  All this 
|individual rights crap gets people to think that they don't
|have responsibilities, only rights.  Buzzt.  wrong answer.

Sure.  A pregnant woman has a number of responsible choices 
open to her.  She could:
- choose to bring to term, and have a child
- choose not to have a child, and get an abortion
- choose to bring to term, & give the child up for adoption

All of these options are responsible choices.  I'm glad
you agree with me.  The only thing a pregnant woman could
do that I wouldn't consider responsible would be to pretend
that nothing is happening, & bury her head in the sand until
it's too late to do anything.  I'd prefer to see women making
conscious choices, but of course I'm not interested in
legislating my preference, or in punishing women who don't
meet my standards.  I'm more interested in helping women
cope with crisis pregnancies, than in punishing them for
being unable to cope.  Which leads me to:

|>Then we'll sit down & have a nice chat about compassion, which
|>is probably another new concept for you.

|compassion - for whom?  The mother, father, or child?  
|But you're right.  campassion is important.  

Compassion for the woman and the man involved.  They're the
only people involved, after all.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com    C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"I would not wish to be hasty in censuring any one; but I always
speak what I think."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 01:10:15 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul22.214915.10296@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
#In article <1992Jul22.201915.8925@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> sgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
#[Stuff about different claims about when fetal heartbeat begins]
#
#}               The sidewalk harassers seem to have as much
#}trouble with this as t.a. does.
#
#I've noticed that too.  They aren't too clear on exactly what constitutes
#an "abortion," either.  But an alarming number of them support legislation
#against it, or candidates that promise to support such legislation against
#it, whatever it is.  
#
#Hmmmmm.  "We don't know what it is, but we sure are against it."

It seems to go along with boycotting sponsors of television
shows that you've never seen, and asking that libraries
remove books that you've never read.  

The thing that makes it all worthwhile to me is that these
folks often get confused, since they don't know what they're
talking about.  One of these same sidewalk harassers
accidentally yelled, "You'll never regret this!" at a
patient as she entered the building.  We applauded.
Said harasser went home.

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: The MOB?! (formerly: Supreme Court)
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 18:59:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.180909.15746@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.190147.6402@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- sounds like Nirvana) writes:
>>>Abortion is extremely profitable today.  It is a multi-billion dollar
>>>industry which the mob has infiltrated in a few areas of the nation.
>>
>>I demand support for this claim, lest you be considered just another
>>person who will say anything, no matter how wrong or hateful, to further
>>your cause.
>
>I do hate the mafia.  Write to the FBI.
>
	In other words, Clausen, you have *no* evidence for this silly claim
and are now trying to weasal out of it.
	Provide objective proof or admit you were just making something up
on the spot.
	Typical.
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion is a SIN against God!
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:45:54 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Jul22.172455.24028@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> 
>>      Why is a fetus a baby?  If you can't abort because the unborn are babies
>>then you also can't use contraception.  Wet dreams become sinful (not to 
>>mention masturbation, eh?) and what about the unfertilized ovum that
>>is disposed of anyway?   Vasectomies become evil because you are forcing all
>>the sperm to die without fulfilling their purpose to create a child.  What
>>about all those other sperm that don't get to fertilize the ovum anyway since
>>only one has the honour?  See, there's a slippery slope here, do you know
>>where to draw the line?  Why do you draw it where you do?
> 
> Well, I'll rush to someone else's defense here. I believe the argument goes
> that if one is to follow the commandment "Thou shalt not kill," that it is
> meant to apply to innocent human life. I know the Catholic Church years ago
> logically concluded even a newly formed embryo to be innocent human life, 

Anyone know and understand this logical explanation?

> and
> so concluded that abortion was wrong. Everything you mentioned above, as a
> matter of fact, is considered sinful

Even allowing the natural destruction of an unfertilized ovum?  I hope not!
Same for the millions of extra sperm that don't get to conceive since
the first one in stops the rest.  Just think of the control a guy would
have to have to abide by his religion...  Only one sperm cell per ejaculate
and it *has* to fertilize the ovum!  Not to mention the poor women who
would have to make babies *constantly*.  

> - following from an argument that God's
> purpose is being frustrated when people do these things. I think most other
> Churches have either adopted or agreed with these beliefs. This discussion
> could go on forever - basically, the "line is drawn" at the point where a
> person no longer has control over what happens. 

In this case, there is no line because the parents can choose to abort/murder
their z/e/f/child whenever they please, therefore they have constant
control.
 
> Maybe someone should begin an alt.theology ?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca

PS. I considered putting smileys in, but I figured that would look morbid,
    dontchagree?
From: cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: CALLING A MOTORCYCLE A GRILLED CHEESE SANDWICH!
Date: 24 Jul 92 11:48:25 GMT
Organization: University of Keele, England

From article <1992Jul23.172539.13189@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, by bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman):
 
>    Suzanne Forgach, along with several other forced-birth freaks,
> insist on refering to a fetus as a person, as if their continuous
> mislabling will change what isn't into their vision of existence.
> Constantly calling a fetus a baby will not make it a baby. 


Well two can play at this game can't they? Constantly dehumanising a
baby by calling it a "fetus" (ironically often used in Latin to mean
"new-born child" or "offspring") isn't going to stop it being a human
being nor make its killing (I believe the current euphemism is
"termination") any more acceptable. The notion that only one side of
this argument uses value-loaded vocabulary is patently ridiculous.

Andy Fear, cla04@uk.ac.Keele
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: BIRDS OF A FEATHER
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:30:39 GMT

In article <Bs3oIH.9rp@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:

>   I truly believe that Darcy did not intend to poke fun at sexual abuse,
>because the initial statement seemed to imply that the individual (as an 
>adult) had partaken in child/adult sex at some time in his life.

One question: as much as you may disagree with Susan Garvin,
has she ever said anything that would give you the impression
that she would condone child molestation?  That she would share
her life with an individual who made a practice of that sort of
thing?  How would you feel if Kevin had implied that your sister,
or aunt, or mother, was consorting with a child molester?

Do you honestly believe that Kevin thought for _one minute_ that
Susan would hang out with someone like that?  

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: COMPROMISE IN THE MAKING.
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 07:17:33 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul27.053132.18754@cc.uow.edu.au> nyikos@cc.uow.edu.au (peter nyikos) writes:
[text deleted]

#Except for the Maryland and Washington laws,
#FOCA is the most draconian pro-choice law ever promulgated
#in the USA that I know of.

This is the funniest juxtaposition of words that I've seen
in t.a. for a while.  "Draconian pro-choice."  Keep
'em coming, Nyikos.

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29335 alt.flame:11447
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: propellor-boy likes the taste of soap (Re: Garvin does anyone (was Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1)
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:25:26 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

the chaney/hall thing posting as chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu 
(Stephen A Chaney) writes to susan garvin:
-> No, it reflects the rumor I heard that as a kid, you offered
-> to every man who said "Fuck you," to help them take it
-> literally.

you can just wash your mouth out with soap without being punished
for posting sonny. and then you won't have to ask an adult to
type your articles.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:49:47 GMT

In article <Brr702.7HF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
}gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

}>In article <1992Jul20.192606.14167@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu 
}>(Gregory S Clausen) writes:

}>}Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.

}>I thought we went over this before.  In the majority of abortions, 
}>there isn't even a "heart" to stop beating.  

}>I am a bit disgusted by people who repeatedly make statements they
}>know to be incorrect.  Unless, of course, they are too stupid to
}>do anything else, in which case I pity them.  What should it be,
}>Mr. Clausen, disgust or pity?

}I'm sorry, Galen, but you are unequivocally wrong.  The heartbeat is
}quite well-established and pumping blood through the circulatory 
}system by day thirty after conception, thank you.  Abortions are not
}performed until the sixth week after conception (that's Day Forty-Two
}for you folks in Rio Linda) since any earlier attempts greatly 
}increase the possibility of perforating the uterus.  

What?

}So surgical abortion does "stop a beating heart".

Oh.  Does that mean you see some kind of distinction between "surgical abortion"
and "abortion" in general?  What would you call termination of a pregnancy
before the sixth week?  Would you disagree with the popular nomenclature
of RU 486 as the "abortion pill"?  I believe it has to be used fairly 
early to be effective...

}>--
}>       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
}>     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
}>  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
}
}Steve Kellmeyer


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Silliest sign carried by a pro-forcer
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 15:01:27 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na
Keywords: From: decay@



We have this monthly ptest here in Pittsburgh in front of
one of our clinics.  (Pittsburgh O.R. has long been dormant.)
Since there are usually ~100 protesters, it's a great opportunity
to see some very odd signs.  (That's about all it is, too.
The patients aren't overly intimidated by these poor people,
despite the best efforts of the leaders.)  This was where
the guy had the "Only non-orgasmic women have abortions" sign.
Last Saturday, one of the had a piece of posterboard on his
back.  On the posterboard, he'd glued a wooden Celtic cross.
To the cross, he'd glued a rubber rat.

The rat, I am told, represents the tiny sex animals that
tempt us and result in our being sent to burn in eternal
hellfire.

To give our local pro-natalists some credit, I should add
that they assigned someone to follow the man around and
try to cover his sign with her own.  The local media was
there, after all.  (On the other hand, one could still
see the crucified rat as one passed beside him.  Most 
patients on Saturday entered the clinic laughing.)

Susan
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ABORTION PILL
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:31:56 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Jul21.192956.9021@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article by nick@cmn10.Stanford.EDU (Nick Porcaro):
>> 
>> Hi.  As a pro-choicer, I'm curious to know what people on both sides of  
>> the fence think of the "Leona" controversy. I'm from the same hometown as  
>> she so I have a different angle on this. I'd like to hear others'  
>> opinions.  Let me assert that I feel she did what was right for her, and  
>> that I was waiting for someone to do this, curious to know what the  
>> results would be.

>I think it is horrible of her to be using her own child as a political
>football.

     Interesting metaphor, Suzanne. How many points does she get if she
kicks a field goal?

  And then she intends to kill it anyway.  She is proving herself
>to be a remarkably cruel mother.


     She is not a mother, and does not plan to be so for some time.
Suzanner, however, obviously thinks this woman would make a great
mother, as she is opposed to the idea of her avoiding this situation via
abortion.

>> thank You

>you're Welcome.

  Don't mention it.

>> Sasha

>Suzanne.

                                               MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Children's reaction to abortion
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 01:05:26 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Jul30.201510.1750@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
Forgach) wrote:
> 
> I am mindful though, of the frequent arguments in this newsgroup that
> children will simply pick up the attitude of whatever adult is trying to
> explain it to them.  So one day at the models, without saying a word, or
> any leading conversation whatsoever, I held my 18 month old daughter up to
> where she could see the models.  She pointed with glee and said, "Baby!"
> 
> Out of the mouths of babes.  It's as plain as the nose on all your faces,
> and that small child put you all to shame.

How interesting.  Perhaps all matters of public debate should be decided by
eighteen-month olds.

On the other hand, our neighbor's daughter went through a short phase where
she'd point at any man who wandered into her field of vision and say
"Daddy!"  I'm pretty sure she was mistaken on this score.

For that matter, when my little brother was about 18 months, he pointed at
a piece of dog shit and said "Chocalate!"

I'm pretty sure it remained dog shit, in spite of his opinion to the
contrary.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion