HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 19:35:25 GMT

> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>Hey, my point exactly!  :-) :-)    I would speculate to say that
>Mother Teresa lives in a far more beautiful world than say, Steve Novak.

I'll ask her.  We're having her over to our gorgeous house outside Lyons,
Colorado :).

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Trivia Hunting time for DearOldDoug
Date: 18 Aug 92 10:40:40 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper


DearOldDoug presents us with the 'fact' that it is
the JudeaoChristianTradition that saved the western
world from the Horrors of Infanticide.

On the surface this is a laudable 'fact.'

Now on to the seriously interesting bit:

1. what does this 'fact' have to do with the abortion debate,
as infanticide deals with the born and not the unborn.

2. what does it matter to a ConfessedHeathen like DearOldDoug
that the OneTrueReligion holds a position that he does not like?
We have seen the FetalIdolators come and go and how they have
sought to Rape the Bible for their own ends... and Now DearOldDoug
wishes to point to an almost related point.... 

3. We also KNOW DearOldDoug that the JudeaChristianTradition
had clearly understood rules about slavery... and so it is
that With Your New Found Faith, You too are willing to see
the Restoration of WholeSomeTraditionalJudeaoChristianValues
and the return of Concubinage?????

Or do you just like to add interesting colour to the debate?

ciao
drieux


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: politics
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 01:51:12 GMT

---
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|In article <opahko8@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
|>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)

|>> Clinton has said that he wouldn't veto
|>> Medicaid funding of abortions for poor women.  Nobody has to get
|>> an abortion that they don't want, but the Democrats would force
|>> people to pay for somebody else's abortion. 

|> I hear you, Doug:  your money is your god.  I'm just trying to
|> respect your values.

|It's obvious that money is your God, CJ.  You would kill human
|beings to save your tax dollars.  I can't respect those values.

Poor Doug.  Doug has a reading comprehension problem.
Doug also has a memory problem.  See the text prefixed with 
"|>>", Doug?  That's your text.  You wrote that, Doug.
Do you remember writing it, Doug?  Money is very very 
important to you, Doug.  I tried to respect that value-- 
your value, Doug-- when I replied to you.

If you can't respect your own values, Doug, perhaps you
should rethink them.  

Try thinking about this value, Doug: 
    Women are more important than money.  

As a woman, that's a value I can respect. 

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"She knew not how to reconcile two such very different accounts of the 
same thing; for she had not been brought up [...] to know to how many 
idle assertions and impudent falsehoods the excess of vanity will 
lead." --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 17 Aug 92 13:07:09 CDT


In article <1992Aug15.224848.29286@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
> In article <adams.713802433@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> >michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
> >
> >
> >>Can the Gov't enforce a *relgious* doctrine that life begins at conception?
> 
> Did anyone ever say that life begins at conception was a religious issue?
> I know lots of pro-life people religious and athiests who are pro-life and
> who believe life begins at conception.  Athiest pro-lifers don't believe
> in a God.  In fact they deny its existence.  Yet you say that the
> pro-life view that life begins at conception is religious in nature?!?
> 
> The life begins at conception idea is mainly scientific and biological,
> not religious.  

The egg and sperm are both "life".

It could be that you are using the term "life" when really refering to
an individual human being.  Of course that brings up the question of
identical twins, which become two individuals after conception.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Date: 23 Aug 1992 11:32:39 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Not feasible at this time of day.

In article <1992Aug22.180345.8176@midway.uchicago.edu>, eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>In article <av_nsdc.gordons@netcom.com>
>gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>
>>When Mr Chaney, Mr Kellmeyer, and Mr Holtsinger have apologized for their
>>racial slander of pro-choicers then I would expect to see Patrick 
>>make amends.
>
>I find racist comments offensive regardless of what other comments
>have gone before.

You have every right to that opinion, of course.

>I also find offensive the idea that whether or not Patrick should
>apologize to Steve Chaney is dependant on what Mr Kellmeyer and Mr.
>Holtsinger do.

As would I, if it was the situation -- but it isn't.  Whether I *do* apologize
to Chaney is a matter between me and him -- and nothing said by either 
Kellmeyer or Holtsinger will have any relevance to that.  It's not their
decision to make, whether they think it is or not.

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

            This .sig is shareware.  To register it, send me $20.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 18:42:01 GMT

In article <FOX.92Aug15221819@graphics.nyu.edu> 
fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:

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

>fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:

>>> Since the fetus is not viable until the third trimester, if
>>> the mother decides not to contribute to the well being of
>>> the fetus that fetus will die.  Thus, at least until the
>>> third trimester, abortion is not murder, even if a fetus
>>> is a human being.

>> In the vast majority of abortions, the fetus is either scraped
>> out of the womb or vacuumed out, thus killing the fetus in the 
>> process.  This nonsense about the woman not contributing to the
>> "well being of the fetus" is a euphemism which helps people
>> to avoid confronting the fact that abortion kills a human being. 

> So you would be pro-choice if the technique was more humane?

Killing an innocent child can never be done in a humane fashion. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:23:26 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  <1992Aug19.174332.20544@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> I don't believe I've heard any self-proclaimed pro-lifer on this
> newsgroup say that they oppose all abortions.

Then you haven't been listening.  (But then, we knew that.)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31924 talk.politics.misc:39974 alt.politics.bush:1723
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 16 Aug 92 01:57:34 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

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> > No, Holtsinger, he said that all women deserve
-> > support of their right to choose.
-> 
-> And that's sexist, because he assumes that all women would actually 
-> _want_ support of their right to an abortion, 

that's not what he said. you seemed not to have learned
that repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

-> i.e. that all women are pro-choice.

that's not what he said either.

it's reasonable clear that you're ill-equipped to deal
with what he, or anyone else for that matter, says.

if you keep making things up about what people say,
some will consider you a liar. some already do.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Myths and facts about Planned Parenthood
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:08:50 GMT

> = Larry "Thai Stick" Margolis writes:
>> = (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>>      I saw one interesting omission:
>>
>>      There was no mention about masturbation.
>>
>>      Has PP ever promoted that as a safe form of sex?

>Well, that's really stretching it, Loren.  :-)

Geez, 5 of these from Larry in a row!  Put down that joint (or pass it
:).
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Who was "Dennis Hall"?
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:40:42 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: LLNL


	I've seen the claim here that "Dennis Hall" was really Steve
Chaney trying to satirize the pro-choice movement with preposterous
pro-choice postings.

	What did "Dennis Hall" say, and what's the full story?

/Loren
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: A comment on RvW
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:56:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.171633.8055@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <l8ifgaINNgmg@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>
>> The concept that I am putting forth is that what we value and protect
>> (often useing the label "personhood") is sentient beings. 
>
>But then sentient animals would deserve protection from being killed, 
>just like sentient humans. 
You say this as if you were saying "But then the sky would be purple."
Is there a problem with protecting sentient animals?

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy (was Re: BIBLE THUMPERS - ALLIES OF CHOICE!)
Keywords: Cough. Cough. Cough Man.
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:19:02 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Aug17.185057.5502@csus.edu>, Stephen A Chaney writes:

>>So the fetus is alive and human; so is the woman.  The fetus couldn't
>>care less if it was aborted or not.  The woman, on the other hand,
>>might care a great deal.  You lose, monkey-man.

> Neither could someone who is sleeping. They wouldn't know what hit
> them if you breathed over their nose and killed them with your foul
> breath. (Or foul logic.) 

Look, moron, in the case of the fetus there is a woman involved,
also.  Where is the analogue in the case of the sleeping person?
Also, in the case of the sleeping person there is a *person*.
Don't you notice a subtle difference, small as it may be, between a
week-old fetus and a sleeping adult?

> Whether or not someone is aware that they're dying, is grossly
> irrelevant.

A fetus ain't "someone".  It doesn't have a personality, or hopes,
or dreams, unlike the woman.  But she doesn't count, does she?

> It'll be YOU. Monkey-boy.

Monkey I may be, but at least I'm not a clueless monkey.  Have
you figured out the trick with the walnuts and the rock yet?
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

"In a study of schoolboys, an educator discovered a correlation between size
 of feet and quality of handwriting.  The boys with the larger feet were,
 on the average, older."        Wallis & Roberts, _The Nature of Statistics_
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 12:12:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.202157.23639@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> > In article <BsxsG4.MuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu writes:
> > |Sorry Adrienne but again this is simple.  If one believes that
> > |the fetus is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right
> > |to life takes precedence over other rights.  It isn't that the
> > |woman does not have rights it is that they are subservient to
> > |the right to life of the fetus.
> 
>   The fallacy here, of course, is that a person does not have a
> right to life; a person has the right to the *pursuit* of life...

Damn.  I have got to get a copy of that Constitution everyone else
is using.  I keep seeing people talk about the "right to life"
as it were a constitutional statement, and then I go home and
check my copies of the Constitution and there's nothing in there
about a right to life.  When I read Mr Thomas' statement, I figured
I had been looking for it in he wrong place or something, so I
went home again and looked around for a right to pursue life.
Still couldn't find it.  Could someone please let me know where
I can get a copy of the Constitution with the right to life or
right to pursue life bits?  I must have a Bowdlerized version.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Putting out the fire, sort of
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:34:49 GMT

From article <Bt7y3F.FHF@rice.edu>, by patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey):
> 
> For those of you who are new to the group, or were out of town, or just
> fell asleep and paged past the article in question, or whatever -- I laid into
> Steve in response to one of his usual rants at me and challenged him to
> "march his fat black ass down here" and say his garbage to me in person.
> Some people out there understandably got a tad upset at my choice of words,
> and I agree I could have phrased it better, even though I *did* mention
> immediately following that that his color doesn't make any difference to me --
> it's his attitude that earns my contempt.  Therefore, to y'all who might
> have been upset at that screw-up on my part, I apologize.  To Steve, though,
> I will NOT apologize -- save on one condition:  he comes down here to 
> receive it in person.  If he wants my respect, he'll have to put forth some
> effort to earn it.


Patrick, an apology for an insult to everyone BUT the one whom you've actually
insulted, does not count as a real apology in my book.


> I expect I'll have to explain myself to my superiors, but that's my problem,

I'm still waiting for an explanation to Steve.


> Patrick L. Humphrey

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:28:40 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  <1992Aug17.161732.28322@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> In article <1992Aug12.214730.14136@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
> >In  <1992Aug12.194144.28416@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Cha
> >>
> >> P = privacy
> >> A = invalidation of parental consent abortion laws
> >> S = legal consentual sex between adults & minors.
> >>
> >> The judge ruled:
> >>
> >> (P->A) -> (P->S)
> >>
> >> I know this will mean a big discussion over logic,
> >
> >You claim that the above proves that A -> S, and you call that logical?
>
> Hardy har har once again, Margolis.
>
> Like I said before, it means that if you want privacy as you interpret it,
                                    =======================================

And as we keep telling you, being pro-choice doesn't mean we want (P), it
means we (some of us) want A.  It says nothing about P or S.  If the
Supreme Court indirectly ruled A by ruling (P) and (P -> A) then we're
happy about (A) but not necessarily about other implications of (P).

> >Congratulations - you've proven that 18 > 15.  The fact remains that
> >the 18-year-old is a minor, so the case wasn't about adult/child sex.
>
> But did the judge specify that this right applies to people under 21 or
> <=18? No, not anymore than they specified that RvW did not apply to minors.

OK.  An 18 y.o. and a 15 y.o. engaged in sex 3 years ago.  Now they're
both of age and want to get married, but you'd rather throw him in jail.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:29:20 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

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@acm.rpi.edu> writes:
-> }dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> }-> Only about 30% of Americans support unrestricted
-> }-> abortion on demand, which has been defined by
-> }-> Keegan et. al. as the only position which is
-> }-> truly "choice".
-> 
-> }i don't know about those "et. al."'s but i'll bet
-> }you can't come with a quote from me that says
-> }support for unrestricted abortion on demand is the
-> }only position which is truly "choice."
-> 
-> As one of those "et. al"'s I'd like to respond that
-> I doubt any of us can be quoted as saying that it is
-> the one true position.  I'll admit I called it the
-> "best" or "truest" or "most g[G](h)od[ess] like" or
-> something like that, but even I didn't call it the
-> only true way to be.

i don't beleive that anyone did. it's simply the kind
of accusation the anti-choicers fake in the hope that
no one notices what they're doing.

-> }i think, dod, that this is another one of those
-> }things you post that simply isn't true. your
-> }ability to produce a supporting quote will, of
-> }course, determine if you're making things up again,
-> }won't it?
-> 
-> I just noticed that this is indeed a response to
-> Doug Holtsinger.  Knowing what I do about history, I
-> wouldn't put it past Doug to quote Bush saying
-> something like "...no new taxes."

i don't think dod will reply at all. his pattern seems
to be to disappear on the threads where's he's exposed
as having made something up.


-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
Date: 20 Aug 92 02:34:02 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <1992Aug20.010011.16783@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu 
(Suzanne Forgach) writes:

}                   The world IS what you make it.  

I know from rather bitter experience this statement is not correct, no
matter how badly you might wish it were true.  You can influence, you
can provide input, but you can never make the world what you wish it were.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: A comment on RvW    (personhood)
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:47:30 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Aug13.133656.8458@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com writes:

> In article <1992Aug13.125625.26818@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> > 
> >   Point of order from the peanut gallery: If a creature is sentient, then it
> > is not an "animal".  It may not be "human" (species-wise), but calling it an
> > animal would be misleading at best (and certainly insulting).
> 
> Point of information back at you.
> How are you defining "animal" and "human"?  Unless they lied
> to me in bio, humans are animals.  I understand that there are
> common usages that separate human from animal, and I think
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> that's where you're driving, but if you're driving there
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> you need to show the rest of us the roadmap.  I think Eric and
> Dougie were being stricter in terms of the biological definition.
> Dean Kaflowitz

  Bingo, Dean.  That's exactly what *I* was driving at.  I had a feeling E&D
were using the strict term, but IMO its best to distinguish between the 
common and the technical, and use the common because its more clear (in this 
case).  Kinda silly to argue that a sentient thing doesn't deserve "human"
rights just cause it's green and has four legs.


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why do they call themselves "pro-life"?
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 22 Aug 92 11:17:07 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug21.172246.17571@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <14252@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> 
> pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch) writes:
> 
>> [.. re: Republican platform on abortion ..]

[...]
 
> Let me ask you this question:  do you support the Democratic platform
> of unrestricted abortion on demand throughout the term of pregnancy,
> and government funding of abortion?  

Let me just say that I'm very happy to be a Canadian.  Do you Americans
really only have 2 presidential candidates to vote for?  If so then
it's no wonder your presidents keep getting shot at.  If not,
then maybe it isn't so bad to be American after all. 

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA