HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Dishonesty check
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:24:19 GMT


Allow me to expose Mr. Holtsinger's approach to the abortion debate
for what it really is...

-----

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
# > The use of birth as a defining point for personhood may convenient,
# > but I rarely hear pro-choicers give a coherent explanation for why the
# > fetus itself is different one minute after both than one minute
# > before.  Certainly it's relationship with it's mother has changed, but
# > that shouldn't affect whether or not is it a person.
# 
# Pro-choicers will often argue that a fetus is inside a woman's body,
# and thus, the fetus is not a person, but an infant is a person.
# This argument reduces women to mere physical containers. Pregnant
# women need not offer any justification for aborting -- the fact 
# that a fetus resides within the woman's body is sufficient
# justification for abortion. According to these choicers, pregnant 
# women might as well be inanimate, non-thinking containers who simply 
# harbor a fetus. 

Anti-choicers will often argue that a fetus is a person because
infants are persons, thus abortion is morally equivalent to murder.
This argument reduces women to mere physical containers.  Pregnant
women have no justification for aborting -- the fact that a person
resides within the woman's body is sufficient justification for
forced-birth.  According to these pro-forcers, pregnant women might as
well be inanimate, non-thinking containers who simply serve to gestate
and give birth.

-----

Mr. Holtsinger, you are a slimy rat-fink.  Co-opting the language of
your idealogical opponents is a time-honored tradition, but it reveals
a bankrupt intellect.  This "I'll say anything it takes to win
converts" approach carries the stench of fundamentalism and is
reminsicent of the tactics of the scariest of historical political
movements.  Lastly, Mr. Holtinger, the original poster was not
soliciting your opinions of what pro-choicers think.  Taken as a
whole, the sum of what I have seen you post amounts to evidence I find
convincing enough to call you a contemptible snake in public (and
reserve my more colorful epithets for private conversation).


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

``Men who have no time to read should devote their time to reading
books of quotations.''
                                              -- Winston Churchill
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Logically speaking, Bush must issue an exec order!
Keywords: never mind, he is that dense
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:10:00 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct9.184424.10476@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
[text deleted about the inconsistency of the Bush administration's
stand on abortion and its IRS policies]

>Well, it seems as if we should afford some tax exemptions on pregnant
>women and their families.  Sounds like a pretty decent idea, actually.

Now I see why I was ignoring you.  

No one mentioned "some tax exemptions," Guerrero, the question
was, "Should a family with a z/e/f in utero be allowed the
same exemption on their income tax as a family with born
children?"  

Susan
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Biblical Authority for Law
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:44:39 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1992Oct7.131833.20451@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
>gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>
>> And Jesus said:
>
>And here's yet another data point to support the observation
>that the pro-aborts are usually the first ones to raise the
>issue of religion.
>
The so called 'pro-aborts' don't appear at clinics replete with rosaries
and bibles, signs stating "God's opinoin" on abortion, shouting prayers,
etc.

 -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
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re:  Re: Choice for life
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:03:10 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Oct16.030215.13506@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes ...
>>Wait a minute, go to the action/adventure section of your local bookstore.
>>Some of those books have similar scenes in them, and no flak has resulted from
>>them.  And watch Kubrick's 1971 film "A Clockwork Orange".  Now if Kubrick
>>was allowed to make that movie, I think my story abut the dangers of fascists
>>rising to power as a result of a backlash against liberalism would be allowed.
>>BTW, I'm not promoting fascism.  Wht my story is  is a criticism of liberalism,
>>showing what could happen if Liberalism is allowed to run amok in our society.
>
>It sounds to me like you've been describing the consequences of
>unchecked fascism.  That you concoct an implausable scenario in a
>feeble attempt to attribute this sort of corruption to liberals
>betrays both your political prejudices and your writing abilities.
>
>You've claimed a few times that people have been misunderstanding what
>you've been writing.  Well, as any decent writer knows, in is the
>responsibility of the _writer_ to be understood, not the
>responsibility of the reader to divine what was meant.  Given your
>limited success in making yourself understood in this forum, I suggest
>that the chances of your getting your "novel" published are rather
>limited.

Implausable scenario??  It's just a story, not a blueprint for the
future.  And I don't believe in what I was writing about.
I am doing evrything I can to be undestood, but I still get the "you're
a Nazi replies, despite my explanations.>
>And lastly, in response to a comment you made in another post, I don't
>want to see you removed from the net, I don't hate you or your views.
>You don't matter that much to me.  Thus far your opinions have been
I think what you all want is for everyone to be pro-choice.
And there is hatred in the replies I get.  Even after I've been
polite to others.

Simon
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:17:23 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <1992Oct1.023954.15548@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>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.

You are incorrect, but that hardly qualifies you for the title of 
"clueless twit."

>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?

"I Have No Mouth, And I Must Scream."  Judging from what Elizabeth 
has told me about Chthulu in an earlier post, Dean seems to be
wishing a similar fate on Chaney as the narrator in the just-mentioned
Harlan Ellison classic short story is depicted as suffering.

>Dean Kaflowitz

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Using the Bible with non-Christians?
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:04:59 GMT

In article <warren.718548104@beloved> warren@pws.ma30.bull.com (Warren Lavallee) writes:

>over us. However without being a Christian, they can NOT understand the Bible.

I don't understand this statement.
Are you saying that non-Christians can't read and comprehend written words?
Are you saying the Bible is more than written words?  Where in the Bible 
are the parts that are not written words?

>The Bible is a spiritual book that you can only understand fully when you
>have the Holy Spirit.

If the Bible can not be understood without the help of the Holy Spirit, then 
I'm afraid I don't see the purpose of the Bible.  If the Holy Spirit has to 
explain things to you that aren't in the actual written words of the Bible, 
then why doesn't the Holy Spirit simply convey both the words and their meaning 
to you directly and dispense with the Bible (which, from what you say, seems 
to be merely a bunch of meaningless written words that can not be comprehended 
without the aid of the Holy Spirit anyways).

I think what you have said demeans the Bible.  I thought the purpose of the 
Bible was to help reach non-Christians by using the written word -- something 
they could understand PRIOR to gaining belief.

Not meant to be a flame.  I am merely trying to understand why you say 
non-Christians can't understand the Bible.


-- 
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*
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: A simple Propositional Process for Brother Beaver
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:17:52 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper


let p1: " X should be affored the status of Y, as
	X has the potential to become Y."

	Beconsidered to be hence forth denoted as:

"The argument of Potential"

p2: "AntiAbortionists have used 'the argument of potential' in
thair effort to establish that 'abortion is immoral/shoudl_be_illegal."

p3: "A means of resolving an argument is the reductio ad absurdum."

p4: "A gentleman posited that he would kill any woman who so
disrespected him as to have an abortion."

by p1, we can transform p4 into:

p5: "anyone espousing that they have the potential to murder is a murderer."

p6: "transforming p4 by means of p1 is a process of 'reductio ad absurdum'
leading the young man to ponder the implications of a system he has used."

p7: "waving 'strawman' and 'smoke and mirrors' about as a refutation of
proposition p6 is not a strong case argument."

p8: "Refutation of p1 implies that no such transformation of p4 can
be made, and hence proposition p5 stands refuted."

p9: "Saying 'ha ha, just joking' does not changed the historical data
of proposition p4 - and thus by proposition p6 leads to proposition p5."

I hope that this will clear things up a little for you.

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Face it: Chaney has stupidity molecules frolicking all over his brain.
Date: 12 Oct 1992 19:24:33 GMT
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


Gawd, I love this subject line.
Thank you, Teddi.
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:00:04 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Oct9.155912.12961@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <ld3bh0INN2u6@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM 
>   (Eric Marsh) writes: >

>>>>> Guess who's lecturing at Carnegie Mellon University Friday night?

>>>>> Yup, Sarah Weddington.  The woman who defended Roe in Roe vs. Wade in
>>>>> 1973.  That's one woman who's gonna have a lot to answer for on
>>>>> judgement day!  Can you imagine the guilt of being very influential in
>>>>> the deaths of millions?!

>>>> Yea, right. Judgement day. Yea, right.

>>>> I don't know why people even bother to post this superstitious crap.

>>> One also wonders about the intentions of those who maliciously 
>>> derogate the religious convictions of others.  If only we were
>>> all Wiccans...

>> Hey, if you were to talk to me about my convictions you just might
>> find that they are more rational than you might think. 

>What about those who consider *all* religion to be "superstitious
>crap"?  I don't consider my beliefs to be any more irrational than
>you consider yours.  How can you justify your comment?

As far as I can determine, the origional poster's contention is in no
way supported by any form of demonstratable fact. It is purely based
on a religious stance, one that runs counter to the evidence about
the nature of the universe. Therefore, I think that the term
"superstitious" is appropiate. As for the word "crap", I will admit
that is just a matter of my own opinion.

>> As the Dali
>> Lama said, when science contridicts religion, it is religion that
>> must change.

>All this says is that science is the only universal truth we can
>rely on.  No surprise there.

No, it says that religion is less based on demonstratable fact than
is science.

>>> Based on your comments, I suspect that there are those who've reached 
>>> similar conclusions about the proponents of Wicca.  

>> I guess your entitled to your opinions, aren't you?

>It isn't my opinion that I was referring to.  Do you think Wicca
>is exempt from such criticism?  

Not at all. It simply provides some more product to the market place
of ideas.

>Bill

Eric
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Threats?
Summary: This was too good to pass up.
Date: 9 Oct 92 03:57:57 GMT
     <1992Oct1.230209.25750@csus.edu>
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>patrick@is.rice.edu (Redneckus) writes:

[*That's* a laugh.  I'd be hardpressed to call even one person I know from
Rice a redneck.]

>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>Tweedledum posting as margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> But I have news for you both.  If ever a baby of mine needs the
>>>>> services of an NICU, and either of you tries pull the plug on him/her,
>>>>> I will pull the plug on YOU.
>
>It should not be MY PROBLEM that you DO NOT CARE ABOUT PROTECTING KIDS'
>LIVES, PATRICK !!! 

[pause while Andrew examines his monitor's blown tweeter]

It isn't your problem, Steve.  I don't think anyone ever claimed you were
responsible for Patrick's views.  Whether your perception of those views
is accurate IS your problem.

>You have NO INTELLIGENCE, NO LOGIC...

no stuck caps lock key...

>You have NOTHING, PatricKKK. 

He has my respect.  Hell, I'm proud he's in the same state.

>You can prove nothing, say nothing, think nothing... 

Hmm...pardon me while I compare the relative entrance reqs for Rice and
UCSC...

>What the hell can you do, punk? Threaten people to come down and say
>stuff to your face and make racist remarks? That's about it. 

Actually, he knows when to bow out gracefully, rather than degenerate into
a buffoon.

>>The only "proof" that exists is in that diseased skull of yours, Bore Boy.
>>Point out to me *exactly* where Larry said he'd "just sit there" if someone
>>tried to 86 his kid's life support.  You can't -- because you made it up
>>yourself.
>
>The article was made in response to his lack of RECOGNIZING THAT SUZANNE
>FORGACH WOULD PROTECT HER CHILDREN. 

I don't think Larry didn't realize that, Steve, I think Larry thought that
perhaps you might be interested in the inconsistency in Suzanne's views.

>>>>I wonder if the kid with the propeller beanie is going to complain about
>>>>Suzanne threatening the life of Andy and Ray?

BTW, I missed this, dammit.  Someone mind shooting me a copy?

>DO YOU SEE LARRY MARGOLIS RECOGNIZING THAT SUZANNE WAS TALKING ABOUT
>PROTECTING HER CHILDREN'S LIVES ?! 

Yes.

>DO YOU SEE IT, PATRICKKK ?!
>
>How many times must I prove myself right in debates with you before we
>all realize just how stupid you are? 

Once would be a start.

--
--Andrew Hackard                                 If I spoke for UT, this post
  andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu                        would make even less sense.

                Steve Chaney Memorial Anti-Roman Catholic .sig
        "Gettin' ecstatic and sorta dramatic and doin' The Vatican Rag!"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Atheist for Christ  (WAS Re: Biblical Authority for Law)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:00:29 GMT

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = Galen J. Hekhuis writes:

>> And Jesus said:

>And here's yet another data point to support the observation
>that the pro-aborts are usually the first ones to raise the
>issue of religion.

Hey, "Atheist" (possibly you know not what the word means): why the hell
do you give a shit?

Note, everyone, that Galen posted a fine lampoon of Frantic Fundies
trying desperately to bend their bible to support forced-birth.

Note that pro-choice criticism of obvious religious fervor really pisses
off many pro-lifers because of how dead-on-the-money that criticism is.

Note also that Holtsinger, a self-avowed atheist who rabidly supports
christianity at every opportunity, is too damned chicken to explain either
his so-called atheism, or his rabid defense of just ONE religion.

You know, Holtmussen, it's easy to see why a few of you desperate control 
freaks claim you're atheist: the criticism of anti-abortionism being flatly
religion-based was getting too hot for you so you had to create various
"atheist" personnas; luckily, you're easy to spot, because you give no other
reason to be anti-abortion.

Pro-lifers: You should get your actors a better script.  Doug and Davey 
"Yummy Mummy" Rasmussen are pretty pathetic.

P.S. - Hey, Dougerama: are you afraid to answer what you think of Bush's
statement that atheists aren't patriots and *shouldn't even be
considered citizens* because this is "one nation under God"?  

Lightweight.
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: The College of William and Mary
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:57:11 GMT

In article <Bvs819.6zF@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>In <1992Oct8.014617.5072@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes ...
>>>	I did not play with any words. Murder is "the killing of one
>>>human being by another". No playing needed. Mother is a human being, 
>>This is a blatant and obvious lie.
>
>	I guess when you have no way to prove your point, you must
>resort to calling me a liar eh? Come over some time and I will show
>you my dictionary.
>
>>As has been pointed out enough times for even the stupidest person,
>>murder is the _unlawful_ killing of one person by another.  Putting it
>>in quotes does not make it less of a lie or more correct.
>
>	My dictionary says exactly what I have in quotes. That is the
>purpose of the quotes. If you have something to say, other than making
>baseless claims that I am a liar then say it.
>

Bruce,
  One *small* fact that you overlook...you are correct, murder is a
crime, therefore we should arrest and convict every service man or
woman who killed one of the "enemy". we should arrest and convict
every President and government official who order the service to
attack/kill the enemy. we should arrest and convict every judge
and jury that sentenced a person to die. this is according to your
definition that "Murder is "the killing of one human being by
another", there can be no exceptions...

sounds kinda stupid doesn't it...

in the *real* world, Murder is the *unlawful* killing of one human
being by another...try living in the real world...

>	I have backed my position up countless number of times. If you
>wish to point out some real flaws in my reasoning that you see, then
>do so. But if all you can do nit-pick at semantics, then shut up.
>
>		Bruce

See the above...your arguement is flawed...

John



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:38:15 GMT

In <4g2z#w+@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
(Ron Bense) writes: >>> 
(Bill Overpeck) writes: >>>>

>>>>Many of us think that occurred when Roe was decided.  Who are you
>
>>> What was forced upon you?
>
>>A set of a beliefs that endorse the notion that abortion is a
>>perfectly fine option.
>
>please describe exactly how this belief was forced upon
>you. 

Via the social/cultural transmission of values.  If a behavior
is politically (authoritatively) endorsed in a given society, 
the (majority of) the membership will easily replace the values 
that once prohibited that behavior with a new set that's consistent 
with the law.  At least according to the claims of sociology and 
cultural anthropology. It's actually far more likely to affect my 
children and/or grandchildren than those of us who were paying 
attention when the (Roe) decision was handed down.

>perhaps you would also contrast it with all of the
>other lawful acts which are forced upon you.

Prohibition might be a good example.  I personally have no
strong feelings about the legal status and availability of
alcohol, despite the fact that the health risks involved
in its use are greater than for many illegal substances.
But Prohibition had long since been repealed when I was
born. 

Our Japanese foreign exchange student was both fascinated
and frightened by the possibility that we might have a
gun in our house.  At age 14, he'd never (nor his parents,
in his case) known a situation in which private gun owner-
ship was legal.  Yet I don't give a second thought to that
constitutional right.

Bill
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Oops. (was Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!)
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:39:31 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:
# >...my suspicions are that Mx. Rink posted copyrighted material claiming it
# >to be his own.
# 
# AACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I checked back at the original post.  You are right.
# There is no credit given.
# 
# My deepest apologies to THE LIFE CHAIN PEOPLE.  They are the folks who
# published the article:

That clears a few things up.  It was a pamphlet.  The article posted
was never intended by its authors to be a refutation of arguments
supporting abortion rights.  It was intended to persuade.  And
considering the number of fallacies and outright lies its authors
employed, I suspect it was written with low expectations.

I'd send them a copy of the post and ask for the references I posted
about, but I don't want an organization like the LIFE CHAIN PEOPLE to
put me on their mailing lists.

Seeing as how the pamphlet was intended to be propaganda, checking its
references would be rather pointless, don't you think?  I suppose the
only thing left to do would be to throw my two cents into the pot and
join in on them game of tearing its arguments to shreds by exposing
the fallacies in its arguments.

I've saved it, so maybe if I'm bored, I'll do that later on.


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

``Men who have no time to read should devote their time to reading
books of quotations.''
                                              -- Winston Churchill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Followup-To: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.test