HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:40:07 GMT

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:

>>     Omaha Church Members 'Pray for Zealots'
>>               by Michael W. Pirtle

[letter deleted]

> I personally find it repugnant to carry dead unborn babies around in a jar.
> Most would consider it disrespectful to lug a corpse of a fully grown
> person around, even if one were lugging aroud a dead Jewish body during
> the holocost to make a point.  But I can see why they would do that, or
> send pictures of aborted babies to advocates of abortion.

Really?  _Why_ would they do that?  Is it perhaps because their arguments
are so bankrupt they have resort to shock tactics?  Is that a valid
debating technique?  Is defacing church property a valid debating
technique?

> I still don't understand the reasoning of someone who obviously considered
> his premature daughter to be human and of great value, yet who defends the
> killing of another child who may even be more mature.  It is said that 
> Roe v. Wade allows abortion up to the 9th month.

Others have explained RvW to you; I suggest you get a copy of the decision
and read it yourself.

> There are also pro-lifers who are involved in great charitable work.  For
> example, in New York, David Wilkerson's church is doing some incredible work
> with drugg addicts and homeless people.  The good works have nothing to do
> with abortion.  It is possible to do good works with impure motivation.
> Paul wrote of those who preached Christ our of impure motivations.  One
> Baptist minister who ran an orphanage recounts how God told him that his
> life was an abomination in His sight.

What was the context of his statement?  Perhaps he was trying to encourage
the faithful to keep trying, knowing that even a Baptist minister could
fall short wrt having pure motives.  Yet this business of being condemned
by God disturbs me.  What about the doctrine of "the Grace of God through
Jesus Christ?"  Shouldn't that hold out some hope?

> He did the goods works in his own name, out of impure motivations.  The
> people at Lord of Love may very well do this works unto the Lord, but if
> the church encourages murder, then there is a problem.

What forms of killing are murder?  If abortion is murder, is turning off
a respirator murder?  Is capital punishment murder?  Is war murder?

> It is possible for genuine Christians to be wrong about things, and there
> are only two sides to this issue.  

Hey, Steve Adams, Elizabeth Bartley and I (and others) are Genuine
Christians[tm].  We all support choice and we don't think we're wrong. 
Would you care to enlighten us?

-- 
Chris Lyman    /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /    my thoughts, my words
    "If two men agree on everything, you may be sure that one of them
     is doing all the thinking." -- Lyndon Baines Johnson
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Bredy, Kodak, Layoff - no abortion talk
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 17:37:01 GMT


I just heard on the radio that Kodak plans to layoff 3000 workers, mostly
back east.  I guess my personal boycott of Kodak products since the Bredy
incident has had it's effect.

It's nice to know the free-market system still works.  My sympathies to
those workers who are going to lose their jobs.


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: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:33:33 GMT

In article <kj+3a+d@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>In article <1993Jan8.212721.22962@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>But how can women approach economic
>>>parity without reproductive freedom?  Do you not see how
>>>unequal reproductive rights would hamper women in the
>>>workplace?
>
>>Pray tell, how would the mandating of certain abortion METHODS, e.g. 
>>C-section versus D&E, "hamper women in the workplace"? This discussion 
>>_is_ focussed on late-term abortions, isn't it?
>
>Are you aware that C-section is invasive surgery, requiring a rather
>significant incision?  The recovery time for C-section (as for any
>surgery) varies widely, from out of bed in a few days, to a lifetime
>of significant pain.  The D&E, on the other hand, does not require
>the cutting and resewing of muscle, skin, and membrane that a C-section
>does.

And what percentage of these procedures are performed "in the workplace" of
the women receiving them, do you suppose?

This is NOT just an attempt to be facetious, Cathi. I hear that phrase
"hampered in the workplace" a lot. I'm not quite sure how that's supposed to
be different from the more generic term "economic oppression". Is the 
difference just some gratuitous emotionalism, or does it imply that only
WORKING women get economically oppressed in this manner (which sounds to me
like a sneaky way of slighting women who choose to be homemakers)?

								- Kevin
From: markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: consenting to sex is surrendering rights? (was: Blackmun calls...)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:57:07 GMT

In <1993Jan8.215544.3567@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>In article <markp.726160675@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>In <ueguljc@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>>
>>>---
>>>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>>>|Ms. Smith consented to have sex.  In so doing she has surrendered her rights
>>>|to bodily integrity and personal autonomy. [...]
>>
>>>Oh, really?  Can you show me the contract she signed when she had
>>>sex?  Can you show me exactly where the US Constitution says that
>>>people who have sex give up these rights?  
>>
>>It's not a contractual or a Constitutional, but a biological consequence.
>>
>Hey!  I resent the fact that you called my two kids "biological
>consequences"!  I'd suspect that many folks here would be upset at
>your dismissal of children in that manner.

I've got a three-year-old "biological consequence" -- best one in the
world!

>Seriously, do you believe that we are all just slaves to our bodies, and
>shouldn't avail ourselves to medical, psychological, and other help when
>we feel it is necessary? 

Of course we should -- but we shouldn't violate anyone else's right
to life in the process.

>Oh, I get it.  Only fertile women have biological consequences. 

Oh, abandon this straw man, already!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: The Plot Thickens...
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:12:52 GMT

Steve Chaney wrote:
>>> #1 - Chris Lyman has threatened to remove my access by sending my
>>> sysadmin a copy of my .sig of Patrick Humphrey. 

Patrick Humphrey wrote:
>> Uh, Steve -- last time I looked, Chris was in Minnesota, not Sacramento.
>> He can't remove your access. 

Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Stop playing dumb, Patrick.  It's the same kind of talk your kind uses 
> daily when saying pro-lifers want to force women to give birth.

Yeah, Patrick, why _play_ dumb when you have Math Whizzes like the Perfesser
_working_ at being dumb?  Remember, he's a professional so don't try this
at home!

Hi, Peter!  Missed you!  Ready to play Specious Speculations again?

-- 
Chris Lyman    /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /    my thoughts, my words
     "Dignity.  Always dignity." -- Gene Kelly in "Singin' in the Rain"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 02:21:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.012253.23150@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.000056.9355@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> The Freedom of Choice Act, [..] contains no conscience clause 
>>> which would protect hospital employees from facing punishment for
>>> refusing to assist in an abortion procedure.  
>
>> No such clause is needed. If you don't want to assist in abortions,
>> don't work in an abortion clinic. 
>
>I mentioned *hospital* employees, not abortion clinic employees.
>
And I was talking about *hospital* employees too twit. Of course, in
typical DODie lying fashion, you deleted the material and replied to a
quote taken completely out of context. Why don't you try facing the
ralities instead DODie?

>> Further, this issue is
>> addressed by both medical ethics and hopsital policy. 
>
>Medical ethics is an oxymoron with regards to abortion.
>
Spoken like a true fetus fanatic DODie. Why don't you try learning
something about the subject before you mouth off? You'll look like
less of an idiot.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 06:17:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.031531.12015@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan3.011137.10390@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan2.165946.10441@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan2.094941.7852@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>
>>>[Lots of deletions]
>>>
>>>>UNRETRACTED LIE
>>>>---------------
>>>>
>>>>"Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
>>>> himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
>>>>				    Susie Garvin
>>>>				    Sun, 18 Oct 92 20:37:06 GMT
>>>>				    <1992Oct18.203706.21850@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
>>>
>>>Kevin, this is not a lie. Whether you see yourself as arguing in favor
>>>of restrictions, or against the lack of them is irrelevant. A large
>>>number of people here interpret your remarks asbeing in favor of
>>>restrictions, 
>>
>[Deletions]
>>
>>If it's easier for you to understand, try thinking of this in terms of a
>>vote. You might vote "no" on a given abortion restriction, and a pro-lifer 
>>might vote "yes" on the same abortion restriction. If I vote "abstain", then 
>>in a sense I'm voting against BOTH of you -- I'm indicating that I don't 
>>consider either of you to be "right" in an absolute sense, and I'm willing 
>>to abide by the outcome of the concensus, whatever that may be.
>>
>No Kevin, you're expressing a desire to weasel out of making a
>commitment so that later, you can claim it wasn't *you* that wanted to
>pass the legislation, no matter how many arguements you posted in
>favor of it.

Gee, do they teach mind-reading in medical school these days?

>>>You may not agree with those who criticize you, (we hardly expect you
>>>will agree with anybody) but that doesn't make this a lie.
>>
>>She asserted not only that I have been criticized, but that I have been 
>>criticized "while arguing for restrictions on abortion". That is the part I 
>>consider a lie.
>>
>Well Kevin, since you're such a fan of rule by concensus, lets examine
>this...
>
> [Kevin must be arguing "for" restrictions, since people think he is]
>

Statements with objective truth value aren't subject to concensus, Mark.
Yours was a pointless exercise.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Cycle 3 in my corresponcence with Mark on fetal tissue
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:36:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.225030.6082@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
Forgach) writes:

>She was "Baby Theresa" and she was a human being.

I'll get more to the point--can an anencephalic baby ever be aware
of herself? Sure, she's alive--so is that 3,000-acre giant fungus
they found up north.

What makes someone a human being? And before anyone says "DNA", let me
just swish my mouth out with salt water.

<pwoosh> There.

I've just spit out several million cells from my cheek. I'll take half
the solution I've got, which contains whole cells, and put it aside.
I'll extract the DNA from the other half, amplify it, and and make a
genetic library of my own DNA. Now let's sit back and watch how long
it takes for little copies of me to grow up.

Tep
-- 
If you wake up and don't want to smile, if it takes | Dear Lord, give
just a little while, open your eyes and look at the | me chastity...  
day, you'll see things in a different way. Don't    |    but not yet. 
stop thinking about tomorrow.       --Fleetwood Mac | --St. Augustine
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: A Minor Request for Assistance
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:23:53 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
->james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
->] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
->] 
->] good for her. i'm pleased she found life after usenet.
->] 
->] -> If we want to talk about folks running away from talk.abortion,
->] -> who can forget Phil S. who was such a major trumpeter of the
->] -> traditional 'thou shall not kill' moral dogma right up until
->] -> the Persian Gulf War..... Then His confussion about 'killing'
->] -> vs. the use of Air Power lead him to opt for other
->] -> tompics....
->] 
->] heh. i remember dear old phil. he's one of the
->] hypocrites who disappeared. some of them are still
->] here, posting regularly.

->James,

->Honey BunchKin, Could You Please Help the Young Ossifer
->who has come into our Midst to understand that allowing
->other to do that which you may not be at liberty to do,
->is not a Moral Complication.

->Its Why Corpsmen do NOT carry SideArms.....

that it is. as for your unlearned friend, perhaps he
understands that which you suggest he doesn't
understand, which would imply his position was actually
based on some other, ummmm, urge.

->ps: Or does we needeth to explain FragBait.....

i think that might be a bit frightening in this
context. but you decide.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54973 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12094 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show:109
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 10 Jan 93 04:54:11 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

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> Darcy> It is far more realistic to subsidize abortion, maybe even to 
-> Darcy> incentivize it, than to rely on people "controlling their hormones", 
-> Darcy> and it achieves the same economic result, i.e. reduction of the birth 
-> Darcy> rate among poor people.
-> 
-> Simmonds> Ahh.. I see.  You don't think poor people are capable of making 
-> Simmonds> intelligent decisions by themselves.  You want to make sure you 
-> Simmonds> hold their hand since you are so superior.  
-> 
-> Sims> You seem to think that female people are incapable 
-> Sims> of making intelligent decisions by themselves.  
-> Sims> You want to make sure you decide for them whether or 
-> Sims> not they stay pregnant because you think your 
-> Sims> views are so superior.
-> 
-> Keegan> people have been criticizing kebbie for that for
-> Keegan> years. it's one of the reasons he has been referred
-> Keegan> to as a "pro-forcer."
-> 
-> Sims> Actually, I wrote this in response to Edward Simmonds, who wrote 
-> Sims> something similar in response to Kevin.
-> 
-> Thanks for the correction, Heather. Keegan seems to be losing it.

somebody has lost something, unless your feed
suffers the same convenient ups and downs of
PHoney's. this was posted two days prior to your
comment.

=======
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 12:10:21 GMT
you're absolutely correct. even i sometimes can't
tell the difference between what kebbie posts and
what other pro-forcers post.
=========================

it would appear, on the face of things, that you're
being dishonest again kebbie. feeling threatened,
are you?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:21:18 GMT

In article <am023-d@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>>And of course you know I do not threaten people
>
>This statement is not correct.

Oh, there's the PROOF! Oh, gee, I have been proven wrong! She SAYS it is
not correct. Oh, gee, my butt is on fire now. I better go bang my head
on a guitar and be just like Rocker. 


>    [racist .sig deleted]
>
>I bet you're getting love letters from the KKK, you appear to be
>their biggest supporter on the net.  (though "Nyikos" is contending
>for the title)

No, PatricKKK is getting their love letters. After all, HE made the
statement. 


  --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
  --------------------------------------------------------------------- 

		                   /\
       		                  /  \
		                 /    \
		                /      \ 
		               /  KKK   \ 
		              /          \ 
		             / ---   ---  \
		            /  [ ]   [ ]   \ 
		           /                \ 
		          /                  \
		         /      --------      \  
		        /       |      |       \ 
		       /        --------        \ 
		      /                          \ 
		     /                            \ 
		/--------------------------------------\ 
		|      |Come on, Steve.  Let's  |      | 
		|      |see just how much of a  |      | 
		|      |boy you are.  March     |      | 
		|      |your fat black ass down |      | 
		|      |here and tell me I'm a  |      | 
		|      |liar, to my face.       |      | 
		|      |  - PatricKKK Humphrey  |      | 

  --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
  --Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.5--
  USENET Warlord / IRC Channel Owner / Accounts WorldWide / Home Login!
	      (Whooboy that means LOTSA time for all this?)
                  The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Greetings
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:04:16 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <29366@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>> and Chris' observations hold true for them (the majority). We have had
>> one other who claimed to be an atheist (saying you are anti-creationist
>> is redundant, BTW:) but he apparently has religious views, as expressed
>> in his opinions and what he chooses to contest in his posts.

>I contest what I see as anti-religious bigotry and intolerance.
>Your twisted reasoning is the same kind reasoning which says that
>people who defend homosexuals from vicious bigoted attacks must
>be homosexuals themselves.  It's a bunch of nonsense.

You contest those who despise those who are bigots?!? I do believe Chris
is a religious man, as are others I'm friends with. I personally would
defend "anyone" from an unwarranted or bigoted attack, and have personally
stepped in to prevent such. Have you? As for the "It's a bunch
of nonsense," that is generally what you spout, made even worse by the
fact that when it is pointed out to you, you continue to proclaim it
so despite the facts you've been presented with. One must wonder if
you are in complete control of all your faculties. (I'm alluding to your
RvW legalises abortions through the entire nine month pregnancy statement.)

Nice to see you promoting bigotry, esp. in the form of religious bigotry.
This flies both ways DoDie.

In case you haven't figured it out, some of those whose views you have
defended are religious bigots, and this is why some of us believe you
are religious, despite all your claims to the contrary.

>Your twisted reasoning is the same kind reasoning which says that

I repeat this line again, so that I may ask you a direct question about
it. What twisted reasoning? You have yet to show that my reasoning is
twisted. If you're planning on using the debate/flames between Welch
and myself, I'll remind you that Welch himself was considered by many
to be twisted.

Something else for you to chew on. You're promoting an oppressive society.
Those against you are for a more open society. Bigots are generally
more closed-minded.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:39:04 GMT

> = (Michael Updike) writes:

>If you oppose abortion at any time before birth how do you justify
>this usurping of a woman's right to choose ?

I don't think that way.

>If you don't oppose abortion at any time before birth what is the
>fundamental difference between the child/non-child the day before
>and the day after birth ? 

I know! ME! ME!

Um...because it's still inside the woman's body and wholly dependent on
her for life.

Thanks.  Where do I get my prize?

>(if there is no difference then why is it OK to terminate before but
>not after?)

Luckily, we don't have to consider that question.

>Please, no flames. I have considered these questions often and am
>truly interested in your reasoning.

No flames.  I wouldn't sink that low ANYway, unless it were either day
or night.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- post 9 articles, get the 10th free!)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: Wash. Area Clinic Defense Task Force (WACDTF), Washington, D.C.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 11:39:30 GMT

[alt.fan.rush-limbaugh deleted.  they hate abortion topics over there. :-) ]

What: <1993Jan8.155238.7975@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
Who:  krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)

>The woman hung out a sign that said "baby welcome" when she had sex.  It 
>is one of those laws of nature, when women have sex, babies will result.  
>Not always, but sometimes.

Conception is a possible result, yes.  I disagree that sex using contraception
constitutes hanging out the "baby welcome" sign.

>Therefore, if the baby would be an intruder, 
>then don't hang out the welcome sign.

IOW, if you don't want kids, don't have sex.  I find this argument
unconvincing, unless you are prepared to assert and support that sex
is only or primarily for procreation.
--
     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion