HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Willing to discuss with Novak, off-line only
Keywords: What's wrong with this picture?
Organization: Not on Friday! 
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:09:07 GMT

In article <24JUL199209420823@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov>, ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:
>Mr. Novak has criticisms of the info I posted to this newsgroup yesterday.
>I will discuss them with him one-on-one.  He must provide a valid e-mail
>address.  It serves no purpose to holler and scream that I am not listening
>and then dodge a response.  I dodge no-one, and even Mr. Novak should know
>that by now.  -  RG 

Well, you posted it publically -- did you expect we'd all just lap it up
unquestioningly?  ("abortifacients are violent", indeed.  We've already got
one Steve Chaney in this group, thank you.)  If you're that sensitive to
disagreement, then go right ahead and "discuss" it in e-mail with Steve --
if your e-mail style is anything like your posting style, we'll know about
it soon enough.  This isn't a place for the thin-skinned, no matter which
side of this wrangle they're on...

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. (I'm turning my phone off while I sleep.)   
The U.S. Constitution isn't perfect -- but it's a hell of a lot better than
                            what we have now...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Fetal RTL defense, Part 2
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 00:22:36 GMT

From article by purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon):
> 
> I notice your postings are alot like David Rasmussen's postings. 
> Do you know him?  


I think it sweet that so many people miss our dear David so much :-) :-)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Dear Operation Rescue
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:33:23 GMT

Patrick Humphrey throws a "Dennis" in in order to get a non-response
from me. 

So I'll just post his _second_ most obvious lie: 

In article <1992Jul24.055559.23534@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Borg Fodder)  blathers:

>>		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
>
>Do you have any documentation of this claim, or are you just foaming at the
>mouth as usual?  (Next, I suppose you'll be screaming that we desperately
>desire dead babies -- just what we need, a black Rasmussen...)

Yes, I do have documentation to this claim: 

In Florida, a circuit court Judge said that laws forbidding adults
from screwing little girls, is unconstitutional because it violates
the right to privacy that nullifies parental consent abortion laws. 

Now, eat shit, Patrick. I've beaten you time and again over so many
lies of yours, and so many issues in general, that your credibility
and intellegence is just too pitiful for words to describe. 

And BTW, with the quest to kill newborns and cut them up for organs
like they tried to do to that anencephalic infant, it sure sounds
like, even if we went by that outrageous claim "fetus != baby", those
who want organ transplants, DO DESIRE DEAD BABIES. How else could they
have gotten that infant's organs besides killing her?  

That's two chops to your jugular. Let's hope there's enough of you
left to make a third cut... 
 


>-- 
>Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
>     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 605 637-4576 on the farm. 
>         What will our "leaders" do once the Constitution is gone --
>                   and we STILL have a drug problem???
		    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
		    Answer: legalize crack cocaine? 
		
===============================================================================
		  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. 
 


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Subject: Re: ABORTION PILL
Organization: .
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:31:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.010416.15782@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon):
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>
>>>I think it is horrible of her to be using her own child as a political
>>>football.  And then she intends to kill it anyway.  She is proving herself
>>>to be a remarkably cruel mother.

[I should note that Suzanne deleted material from my reply which stated
that Leona, the abortion-pill-lady, had put her life at risk for her
convictions (which strikes me as courageous), while Suzanne can't be
bothered to stay at home and rear her children because it would lead
to a less comfortable life style.]

>> Maybe if Suzanne would assume the responsibility of rearing her daughter
>> instead of foisting it off on others and using the time to post hateful
>> messages to the net, she might learn something about courage, sacrifice,
>> and risk.

>Jim, you jerk.  I posted my article from home.  Ain'tcha never heard of
>modems?  Or are women too stupid in your mind to know how to operate one?

Playing with news when you could be caring for your daughter, Suzanne?  It
doesn't strike me as particularly motherly.  And are you claiming with
the statement "I posted my article from home" that you don't have a job
that separates you from your daughter, simply for the sake of a more
confortable life style?

By the way, I've heard of modems, and know a little bit about them, but
not as much as my wife does.  So I certainly wouldn't say that women are
too stupid to know how to operate them, at least not most women, that is.

However, some women are too stupid to do much more than simply parrot
what their priests tell them.

>Hell forbid her father and I should share raising our daughter!  Me thinks

Oh, sharing is fine.  Its temporary abandoment for the sake of a more
comfortable life style that I question.  I find it odd that you, who
won't even consider enduring a little economic hardship for the sake
of your daughter's mental and physical well-being (after all, you've
implied that males just can't be as good at child care as females,
as they lack wombs and functional mammary glands), choose to berate
someone who puts their life on the line for their convictions.

>you are one of those fellows Bill Clinton was addressing in his speech
>who would need to be forced to take responsibilitly for his own children,

Guess again, deary, and go look in a mirror and tell us who you see
there.

>since you consider sharing parenthood being "foisted upon".

It is when you share it with someone who isn't the parent of the child
in question.  How much do you pay your baby sitters - that's exactly
how much parenting is worth to you.

-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: darkstar@milton.u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:11:33 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article by purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon):
>> 
>> Do you really believe that a movie of someone sneering and smirking as a
>> latex condom is placed on a cucumber is pornographic?

>I really believe that handing children condoms and training them to
>roll them on and off cucumbers and bananas is for the sole purpose of
>desensitizing them to casual, random, and public, sex,   so that they
>will be far more likely to participate in it.

No, Suzanne - some of them will do it anyway, with or without condoms. 
Better that they should use a condom and avoid the risks of STD's than
that they should get pregnant and/or contract an STD.  You can protest
that it is WRONG all you like, but right or wrong, they do it anyway.  I
did it.  I didn't know the risks.  I got lucky.  Your child may not be so
fortunate.  Consider your child's safety.  It's not much good to say "You
shouldn't have done that." to a person who is HIV+.  Is that that you
would say?  

>(Anyway, what is pornography but public sex?)

If we accept that definition (which I don't), then anything done in
private is not pornographic.  Who ever said anything about sex education
promoting PUBLIC sex anyway?  

"I don't care what people do so long as they don't do it in the street and
frighten the horses."

Alden 

FounderOfDrieuxidsForJesus

"Why Don't We Do It In the Road?"  -  John Lennon
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion is Murder!!!
Date: 25 Jul 92 00:49:14 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Jul23.193644.22426@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
>
>I don't understand how you people can even debate such a clear cut issue.
>Abortion is murder and there is no way to deny it.  

Read the FAQ list on this one. You are wrong.

These supposed 
>"Pro-Choice" people are supporting the killing of little babies.  

Your are wrong again. Abortion does not kill babies.

>To me, the
>ironic thing is that many of the Liberal supporters of abortion are the ones
>that oppose the death penalty and believe animal rights are more important 
>than human's.  

That is because those people try to protect the well being of 
creatures that are capable of suffering. Its called compassion. A
z/e/f is not capable of suffering.

>I just pray to the Lord above that those Liberal tax and spenders
>Gore and Clinton do not get in the White House. 

Good. You keep on praying. In the mean while I'm doing my best to
get Bush out of office.

>George Bush is this country's
>last hope before the liberals and the homosexuals take over.  

Oh HORROR!!

>If this country
>is not careful, it is going to feel the wrath of God, and it will not be pretty.

Yea, right. Where is this mythological God of yours?

Eric
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: IDIOTS, DAMN IDIOTS, [...]
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:43:17 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

My nomination for quote of the week:

In article <1992Jul20.115135.14034@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>
>I think I was right, Doug.  You do only open your mouth to change
>feet.
>
>Dean Kaflowitz

Sarah McCabe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: 35002_3137@uwovax.uwo.ca
Subject: Re: PP executive says "personhood...begins a month after birth" 
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:33:08 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <1992Jul17.235151.23352@ncsu.edu>, dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Jul17.005659.2692@csus.edu> 
> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> 
>>fkissling@igc.org (Frances Kissling) writes:
> 
>>> [.. article about Catholics for a Free Choice ..]
>  
>> This woman puts this issue in a religious and moral sense all over her
>> arguments. She even says science might not be the best way to decide
>> personhood. 
> 
> Did you catch the part where a Planned Parenthood executive stated
> that "personhood... begins a month after birth"??!! Not only that,
> but the same PP executive states that "my logic is based on ... a religious
> perspective". Hey Jay Stein, what do you think of those remarks?
> 
> 
> Here's the quote, in case anybody missed it:
> 
> Message-ID: <1482700012@igc.org>
> 
>> FROM CATHOLICS FOR A FREE CHOICE
>> 
>> The following is an article from the Spring 1992 issue of
>> Conscience, the quarterly newsjournal of prochoice Catholic
>> opinion published by Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC),
>> [...]
>  
>>                          Gloria Feldt
>> chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona;
>>          board member, Arizona Family Planning Council
>> [...]
> 
>> Gloria Feldt   I do not believe that the fetus, although it has
>> value, is entitled to personhood status or to any other
>> citizenship guarantee under the Constitution, and therefore due
>> process for the fetus is not a legal right but a legal wrong.  
>>     My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>> that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> we want to be precise) and that the well-being of the woman must
>> prevail [and on] the ... information I have gained from looking
>> at actual fetal life and at women involved in pregnancies,
>> childbearing, miscarriages, and abortion....
>>      * * *
>> What religious perspective holds that the woman always comes
>> first? Judaism.  The Talmud lists certain circumstances in which
>> abortion should be performed for the benefit of the woman.  It is
>> clear in its teaching that life (personhood) does not occur until
>> a point during the birth process--generally when the head is out. 
> 
>>     I was stretching things a bit to say that one month after
>> birth is the more precise point, but it is true that, because of
>> high infant mortality rates at the time, some believed that the
>> baby should not be named or counted until that time (not because
>> it was not valued, but because it was valued so much that there
>> was great fear of losing it).  
>> [.. rest deleted ..] 
> 
> 
> One has to wonder why she eased away from her initial remarks. 
> 
> 
> Doug Holtsinger
test


.
>
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Guttmacher - The Preferred Choice
Date: 31 Jul 92 20:38:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <03qm_qd.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes ...
>>Has anyone else heard the statistic that AG informations
>>points to the fact that 90% of those who have had
>>an abortion would have picked another option, if 'a good
>>alternative' was available or something like that?

>>Sounds like the great desire for The Choice (The Right) does 
>>not mean that the ones who are making the choice think that
>>abortion is the The Preferred Choice.

>And what have the Conservative Right and the Piously Religious
>done to provide alternatives?

Nice names CR and PR - they may not have done anything, but...

Many if not most Pro-life clincs in the Altanta area provide
alternatives - home for crisis pregancies, adoption, etc.

Our church has a ministry that does this.  My wife and I
are on the list to take these women into our home.

What does the Pro-Choice side provide? I believe they provide 
abortions much of the time, for those who come into the clinics.  

Not really wanting to be too direct, but what have you done? 

I have heard of one place where both the Pro-Choice and 
Pro-Life groups work together to provide some choices.

>Lessee.  Conservatives want to reduce government spending for 
>child care.  The religious feel that anyone getting caught
>having sex outside of marriage is a sinner and should be 
>punished.  

No, all have sinned - you must have missed this.  
Extra-marital sex is a sin.  Christ died for us while
we were sinners, but Christians are not to continue sinning.  

>          Conservatives want to reduce spending on schools.

I think they want to allow for some spending at the school of
one's choice and not necessarily reduce the spending.

>The religious think that people shouldn't use contraception.

We use contraceptives, but if it fails, we will, hopefully,
have a child.  We will not be getting an abortion.

>Conservatives oppose laws requiring maternity leave.  Both 
>groups oppose sex education.
>
>What's wrong with this picture?

Greed - ignorance.

>Ray Fischer
>rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
>ray@netcom.com

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Elvis)
Subject: Re: franklin defends darcy
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:22:41 GMT

In <1992Jul28.180637.25888@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- Subliminal Psychology Talent Scout) writes:

>What: <Bs3wn8.BLz@cs.dal.ca>
>Who:  franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca [Steve Franklin]

>You've yet to recover from your rather embarrassing assertion that functional
>families never beget homosexual children but that the presence of homosexual
>children doesn't necessarily imply a family that isn't functional.
>I, and at least one other poster, told you that the two statements are
>equivalent.

   I don't recall saying this exactly, but you almost hit my point. My
"embarassing" assertion was that children are a product of their
environment first and foremost (my oversight was in making this statement
an absolute, rather than a "in most cases" statement).
   You see, I fully believe that strong, loving heterosexual relationships
will (in most cases!) breed in turn loving, heterosexual relationships.
However, I subscribe to the theory that homosexual relationships and
practices stem from a childhood that was less than "normal". You define
normal if you like. There is a higher incedence of homosexuality in chilren
who have been through a divorce. There is also a higher incedence of 
homosexuality in those who lost a father (OR mother) when young...
   Sure, in my first article I flunked by generalizing, but I still
think the point holds.

steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Minor Theological question for the UnixForChristGang
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:15:34 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>lip@s1.gov (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.
>] 
>] /Loren


>Minor concern here then,

>since the bible Says it,
>do you believe it?

  matthew 19:8-12 [NIV] says this:

  8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your
hearts were hard.  But it was not this way from the beginning.
  9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital
unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
 10 The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband
and a wife, it is better not to marry."
 11 Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom
it has been given.  
 12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made 
that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom
of heaven.  The one who can accept this should accept it."
  
  it reads to me that the whole eunuch question came up in the context of
divorce and marriage issues.  to renounce marriage because of the kingdom
of heaven isn't necessarily becoming a eunuch.

  since the bible says it, do i believe it?  in it's context it makes a lot
of sense.  what it says in verse 11 is "Not everyone can accept this word."
there are different routes for people in different situations.

>And if so, have you followed this command?

  and since i believe the bible, but since i'm not stupid enough to "do
everything in it" without examining the meaning of context, i'm not going
to run out and whack of my scrotum "because the bible tells me to."

[...]

>pps: for the slow of reasoning, if the sole purpose of
>heteroSexuality is replication.... then what does this
>scripture have to suggest about that?????

  sex in marriage is designed for a married couple to give each other delight.
1 corinthians 7:5 says "Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent
and for a time, so that you may devote yourseves to prayer.  Then come together
again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

  while this does not advocate round the clock sex, it does provide its
role in their marriage and in relation to god and to temptation.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29569 alt.birthright:164 alt.abortion.inequity:2752
From: chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 )
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Hypocrites?
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:43:57 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Originator: chaneysa@nextnet


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? 

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."  

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. 



===============================================================================
		  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. 
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion