HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 00:10:36 GMT

From article judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein):
> From forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
> 
>>Could it be that Quayle, as a father, merely said he would never turn
>>his back on his own daughter?   Hmmmm?   Hell, I could say the same thing.
> 
> In other words, 

"In other words" crap.  These are YOUR words.


> you would support your daughter's decision to have an
> abortion, 

Absolutely not.   I would not allow her as a minor to have an abortion,
and if she were an adult, I would do all I could to talk her out of it.
(gee as it turns out this IS exactly what Dan Quayle said).   However,
if she managed to have the abortion anyway, she would still be my daughter
and I would still love her.


> but you would not allow anyone *else's* daughter to have the
> option.

Either.  That option Either.  That's right.


> I find this sadly lacking in moral consistency, not to mention intellectual
> integrity.

You lie, and then argue with yourself!   How typical.


Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS AND PROLIFERS IS BIGOTED
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:25:41 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Jul28.115557.26677@hemlock.cray.com>  mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
> Maybe not, but the inherent dualism is enough to make you
> crazy.  Not enough that we have good/evil, sacred/profane,
> us/them, we have to set up barriers between ourselves and
> our thoughts.  It would make a great SNL scene, would it
> not, a person quarreling with his own thoughts and being
> wrestled to the ground?  Has this been done?

Sure - we see Doug doing it all the time.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29392 alt.birthright:136
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: One sure way to prevent a teen abortion? (was Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:37:59 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Jul28.181259.2757@wuecl.wustl.edu> dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
><1992Jul28.011150.14456@csus.edu> (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>> The parents, once again, don't have to strike a single blow: the blow
>>> they strike is with the pen, signing her into an unwanted children's
>>> home.
>
><1992Jul28.145831.657@pwcs.stpaul.gov> (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> You know, it occurs to me that consigning a teenager to a foster home is
>> a little more complicated than just signing a form.  Any juvenile law 
>> experts want to clarify things here? 
>
>I can't say one way or the other, but let's assume you're right
>and parents of teenagers have more than trivial hoops to
>jump through in order to rid themselves of their parental obligations.
>Do you have any opinion about such an anti-choice government
>policy that forces parents to conform to a state-imposed moral
>view of their duties to their children?

What is your view of an anti-choice society that forces parents to
keep unwanted children in the home after the children have done
something they don't want done in the parents' home? 

Do you think it's _smart_ to force parents to keep them? I mean, let's
_USE_ your reasoning here, Mr. Porter. 

>|   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._________________________________|


===============================================================================
			No regard for the enemy. 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: steve franklin: homophobe or not?
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:27:09 GMT

---
mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
|franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
|>|This is ridiculous. I am afraid that I no longer can sit passively during 
|>|this thread. Homophobia is an IRRATIONAL response to homosexuals and 
|>|their practices. It is NOT irrational to be disgusted by the concept of two
|>|(wo)men having sex. Although one should tolerate and leave alone such men and
|>|women, they should never be forced to accept, practice, or condone it.
|
|Why?  Because he thinks homosexual intercourse is disgusting and will
|never accept, practice, or condone it?  How is this homophobic?

Because by not "condoning" other people's sex lives, you 
fail to "condone" them... and instead, you condone the 
people who beat them, discriminate against them in housing
& jobs, and give them a status less than human.  Why should
you have any opinion at all about other people's sexualities?
It's none of your business.

|There are many people who think the same of homosexual intercourse,
|but do not have a problem with socializing/doing business/etc with
|homosexuals.  To be completely honest, the thought of another man's
|penis entering my anus or my mouth disgusts me.  Does this make me
|a homophobe, or have I missed your point?
 
Do you "condone" same-sex intercourse when consenting adults do
it?  Do you merely refrain from doing yourself what you don't
like?  If so, you're not a homophobe.  

If you say, "I can't condone that", and start trying to stop other 
people from doing it, then yes, you're a sick bigot.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Oh, you're a bigot all right, you just feel that saying you have the 
right to be one means you're liberal.  If it didn't happen so often, 
it would be funny."  Mark Sobolewski, in talk.religion.misc
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: PP executive says "personhood...begins a month after birth"
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:45:23 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) stuns us all:

> =============================================================================
>                  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
> =============================================================================

'B.O.S.S.' means 'Better Off Shoveling Shit.'

Hey, this is _fun_!

-- 
Chris Lyman -  a personal        /   "I belong to no organized
opinion for every occasion       /   political party.  I am a
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov    /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: Fetal RTL defense, Part 2
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 17:46:02 GMT

In <1992Jul23.175956.18589@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

[ATTENTION: Stuff posted on Fridays and Saturdays tends to get 
expired before I can read it. Please delay your response if
you want me to see it.]

>I never said that most pro-choicers believe that it's OK to
>kill viable fetuses. That is your strawman argument. 

>If a pro-choicer is to avoid embracing infanticide, they 
>must offer a rational justification for killing a late-term
>fetus that would not also justify infanticide in similar 
>circumstances. Blatant assertions like "because it's inside
>the mother" have no rational justification.

>> The only thing that's changed
>> is that I've gotten fed up and left, 

>I think you got "fed up" because you haven't understood my
>argument. 

Unlikely. I'm a licensed philosopher.

Well, I suppose I can try one more time. I believe that the
argument in your second paragraph is:

For any pro-choicer X, there exists some set of potential
    circumstances Y, such that X believes that it is morally
    justifiable to kill a late-term fetus to prevent Y, and 
    such that X believes that it is not morally justifiable 
    to kill a newborn to prevent Y.

Now, whenever I argue against this, you accuse me of attacking
a strawman. But I've read your argument many many times, and
this is the only interpretation I can come up with. If I've
left out any relevant points, I don't think it's my fault.

For the record, my rebuttal is:

I believe that there exists no set of circumstances Y such that
     it is not permissible to kill a newborn to prevent Y,
     and such that it is permissible to kill a late-term
     fetus if Y occurs.

>Ms. Garvin has simply asserted that it's "sometimes necessary"
>to kill a late-term fetus to remove it from its mother, but
>she hasn't defined "necessary". Her "necessary" might include
>"necessary to avoid labor pains", or "necessary because it's 
>less expensive than labor", or "necessary because the woman 
>wants her down's syndrome child killed". Under similar 
>circumstances, these reasons would also justify infanticide. 

Well, let's see. Your first two sets of circumstances are 
not relevant to the problem at hand, because a woman can't
avoid the pain or expense of labor by killing a newborn.

The third set of circumstances is relevant. I don't believe
that the "desire to have a Down's syndrome child killed" is
sufficient as the sole motivation for either a late-term
abortion or infanticide. If a woman wants to be rid of
a viable fetus with Down's syndrome, then she has the option
of having it removed alive and handing it over to the goverment.

>>Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)


>Doug Holtsinger

-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: "Abortion is Murrrderrr!!!" (Was: Re: BUSH)
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:49:55 GMT

In talk.bizarre, alt.politics.bush and alt.politics.clinton,
hernande@cs.tulane.edu (Oliver Hernandez) wows us:

> Ok, then.  Why don't we just go into the into the all the underdeveloped
> neighborhoods and housing projects and KILL all the babies there less than a
> year old?  They'll never amount to anything anyway, so why not KILL them too?
> Yours is a poor excuse for supporting the barbaric practice known as ABOR-
> TION.  A baby in the womb is the same as a baby a year old, and just because
> he/she cannot fend or speak for itself does not give us the right to predict
> their fate and end their life based on that.

You forgot someone, Oliver.  There's a woman surrounding that womb who may
not want to be pregnant.

> Sorry, I know that this is the wrong newsgroup to debate abortion, but Bush's
> pro-life stand is one of the main reasons why I'm voting for him.  He shows
> the backbone and strength to lead this country by opposing abortion and all
> its liberal, ignorant, feminist "pro-choicers."

Bush was pro-choice until he accepted the nomination for VP.  Wha' happened?

> By this, BUSH IS the canidate for family values, not the I'll-allow-a-woman-
> to-murder-her-own-baby-if-it's-her-choice Clinton.  (from his senseless "I'm
> not pro-abortion, but pro-choice" statement).

Bush has vetoed EVERY pro-family and pro-child piece of legislation to come
down the pipe.  That makes him something of a hypocrite, does it not?

He has extended 'most favored trading nation' status to China in spite of 
their abysmal record on human rights AND their pro-forced-abortion policy.
That makes him something of a hypocrite, does it not?

He referred to Reagan's economic proposals as 'voodoo economics' until he
accepted the nomination for VP.  That makes him something of a hypocrite,
does it not?

> Have you ever gotten YOUR head ot of the sand and seen exactly how
> a baby is ripped from its womb, sometimes so maliciously that his/her head or
> limbs are torn off?  (yes, a "fetus" does have limbs).  Maybe YOU should see
> the butchery that's going on in America.

Hmmm. You have a lot to learn about abortion.  Why don't you mosey over to
talk.abortion for a chat?  (I'd set the appropriate follow-up, but my news
reader is such a kludge, it's not possible.)

> Vote for Bush, and you'll vote for the canidate who's TRULY pro family.

Only among the uninformed.  His domestic policy is a complete non-entity;
in other words, a perfect self-portrait of GHWB.

-- 
Chris Lyman -  a personal        /   "I belong to no organized
opinion for every occasion       /   political party.  I am a
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov    /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 17:44:46 GMT

<1992Jul20.185900.13472@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) said:
>In response to Mark Ira Kaufman:
>   One of the techniques to support a woman's constitutional right 
>to abortion is to focus on some difficult aspect of abortion.  
>One favorite ploy used by the less intelligent pro-abortion fanatics 
>is to evoke the subject of abortions resulting from pregnancies
>initiated by rape or incest.  They evoke the subject as if it were some 
>significant part of the big picture of abortion in America.  It is 
>usually suggested by these zealots that there are thousands of women in 
>America who are being impregnated daily by rapists and family members.
>   Even someone as publicly untutored as Mark Ira Kaufman should know
>by now that rape/incest abortions are fewer than three percent 
>all the abortions performed in America.  

If you were really being intellectually honest you would also comment on
the pro-lifers who use the less than .5% of abortions performed in the
last trimester as a evidence for illegalizing abortion.  But then, I've
yet to see a great degree of honesty in the pro-life movement.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress),
and Susan, and married to the sweetest woman in the world, and proud of it.
-- 
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.
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:38:18 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


Did I miss the post in which DOD took Clausen to task for
citing a small numbers argument?

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Hypocrites?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:59:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.164357.13291@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 ) writes:
>
>I would have written "HYPOCRITES !!!!" but I was making a point. 
>
>Are you a hypocrite? 
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Isn't it funny that pro-choicers, in their mad scramble to refute what
>I said in my stereotypes against pro-choicers, have yet to notice the
>stereotypes laid against pro-lifers every day, on TV and in the
>newspapers? 

I guess that makes you perfectly justified in doing it yourself?

What was that about hypocrisy?

>Even though there are huge numbers of women and people who aren't
>religiously motivated, not to mention liberals of every stripe, in the
>pro-life movement, not to mention a huge feminist group, the media
>never, ever lets anyone see them. All you ever see are Christian
>males, and hardly any minorities, as if that's all there is, in the
>pro-life movement. 
>
>The media refers to pro-aborts as "pro-choice" and pro-life as
>"anti-abortion."  

Perhaps because the media is capable of realizing that pro-choice has nothing
to do with pro-abortion. Many folks in the pro-choice camp do not agree with
abortion at all and find it abominable. But they also don't think it is 
their position to tell women what to do with their reproduction.


>And YOU want to complain at me about my shameless attack on
>pro-choicers? Hell, it's nothing compared to what the media does to
>us. So until they stop, I think it's about time that pro-lifers
>started picking up a stereotype list to fire back. 
>


So go complain to the media, or have a valium.


>
>
>===============================================================================
>		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
>===============================================================================
>===============================================================================
>BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
>B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
>BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
>BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
>BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 
>
>	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 


The 'boss' is killing his business.


-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Highly Opinionated, Aging  and                      knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
            Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Date: 25 Jul 92 00:42:20 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu

From article by steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak):
>> = (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> 
>>	Getting oneself neutered would be an even better solution. No
>>willpower necessary. Jesus Christ himself recommended it -- read
>>Matthew 19:12 on how there are eunuchs who have made themselves
>>eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.
> 
> Really.  You would know.
> 
> Given this bible passage, why are Catholics like Forgach so against
> vasectomies and similar stuff?


You ain't doin' it for God, Novak.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Extra, extra! God expands punishment for AIDS! (WAS What *is* Homophobia)
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:34:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.160553.14158@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>Ah, I see.  So now AIDS is not only "God's punishment of homosexuals" but
>"God's punishment of homosexuals and anybody that screws around".
>Additionally, God's apparent sloppiness leads to all those infected through
>blood transfusions, medical accidents and all the other horrors AIDS has
>inflicted.
>
>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.  Do you really think
>you're gonna recruit anybody by scaring people with this wacko version of
>the Big Enchilada?  Methinks no.

If the bigots keep believing AIDS is the work of GOD they might get
more than they bargained for. Already we see what may be another
strain of HIV (HIV3), or another HIV like virus that isn't being
detected by the current tests. The first day (yesterday) they noticed
11 cases, today they count dozens (everyone is starting to report them),
by then end of the week we may be into the hundreds which will only
be the tip of the iceberg, since HIV takes years to develop into AIDS.

Fortunitly this version doesn't seem to be more contagious, but it
is yet more proof that HIV (or whatever this new thing is) can mutate
rapidly. We can't assume that HIV will not mutate to a more contagious
form though, and more frightenly a highly contagious and undetected
form.


-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: How many deaths are insignificant? (was Re: THE THIRD TRIMESTER MYTH.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 07:08:28 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Jul25.062430.15507@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
><1992Jul22.212034.28968@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com(Gordon Storga) writes:
>>I have no objections with up to the moment of birth abortions.
>
>Do you have any objection to killing a viable z/e/f just prior to such an
>abortion, where the killing is of no discernible medical benefit to the 
>pregnant woman?

If it is the only way to make her "unpregnant" then I don't mind.
However, termination of the pregnany is the point of an abortion.  I see
no reason why the fetus should be killed if it is not necessary to the
immediate termination of the pregnancy.  I also see no reason why the woman
should be required to pay one more dime for this type of abortion than any
other type.

And your opinion?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to the sweetest woman in the world, and proud of it.
-- 
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.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion is Murder!!!
Date: 24 Jul 92 01:07:49 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

jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
[...]
-> Abortion is murder and there is no way to deny it.  

sure there is. i deny it.

your statement is, based on my denial,  incorrect.

if, mr. sheir, you wish to argue your point further, you'll firts
have to redefine both murder and abortion. these terms, mr.
sheir, murder and abortion, are terms you should research and
understand before using them again as foolishly as you did here.

you might begin by looking over the t.a. faq.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:28811 alt.politics.homosexuality:5176
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: What *is* Homophobia (formerly: SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS...)
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:20:14 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Jul23.012328.16153@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
Forgach) wrote:
> 
> Don'tcha get it?  Condoms were _never_designed_ to stop a virus millions of
> times smaller than a sperm.    WhatEVER gives you the idea that it would??

Why don't you take a little walk over to Mr. Dictionary and see whether you
can find the word "impermeable"?  Then borrow a virology text and look up
the word "vector".

> Many people aren't very smart either.

Maybe you should all get together and start a political action committee.

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