HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@cc.uow.edu.au (peter nyikos)
Subject: Re: COMPROMISE IN THE MAKING
Organization: University Of Wollongong
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 05:35:31 GMT

HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

>In <1992Jul13.164344.16840@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu writes:

>> In article <1992Jul13.103637.22104@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> 
>> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>> 
>> > Actually, the Freedom Of Choice Act is favored by almost every
>> > person for choice that I know.  While many related issues are not
>> > dealt with, it is regarded as a good starting place, while at the
>> > same time allowing states to have some control.
>> 
>> The FOCA is not compromise, nor does it allow the states to 
>> have any say in the issue, it's simply Roe v. Wade in disguise.
>> Roe v. Wade legalized "abortion on demand" in this country,
>> and only a minority of the population supports abortion on demand. 
>> Doug Holtsinger

>  Whoa there, cowpoke!  Whether I like it or not, I do know that approx 60%
>or so of the US public favors allowing the choice

Whoa there, yourself!  Over 50% of Americans approve a ban on abortion for
any reasons other than rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother.
(1992 Wirthlin poll).

>--which essentially comes
>to allowing abortions.  The "on demand" caveat may well make your statement
>technically correct, depending on how you define it, but I think its awfully 
>misleading.

On the contrary, it is what you are writing that is misleading.

>semper fi,

>Jammer Jim Miller 

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:54:54 GMT

In article <BrwCst.2nA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
> jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
> 
> 
> >I don't understand how these religious zealots who call themselves
> >"Pro-Life" can do so.  By outlawing abortion, they would be forcing
> >women back in the alleys, and many would die of these illegal abortions.
> 
> Three-part response:
> 1) It would "force" both men and women to be responsible for the
> results of their actions.  If they wish to engage in a procreative
> act, then they have to deal with the results of their action.

But women who choose to have abortions are dealing responsibly
with the result of their actions.  They examine the options and
make a responsible decision based upon their uderstanding of
the facts and circumstances.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing})
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers"  Are Really Pro-Death
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:28:52 GMT
Organization: Grand Valley State University, Allendale MI

In article <nqvk0gk@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>---
>|jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
>|>experimentation to save people's lives.  And many of these people are
>|>against teaching the young about safe sex, and then diseases like AIDS
>|>spread.  These people are obviously Pro-Death.
>|
>orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:
>|Please wake up and smell the coffee.  I haven't seen or heard a significant
>|number of pro-life persons on this newsgroup argue for what you say.  
>
>You aren't reading the same newsgroup I'm reading, in that case.
>
>You've posted that you're gay, right, Wes?  You might also be
>interested in looking at the number of homophobes in your
>pro-"life" camp.  I'd be nervous if I were you, to be in the
>company of people who hate me so much.
>
stuff deleted>>>
There are a lot of homophobes in the pro-life camp.  The reasons I am
pro-life are not religious but moral conviction.  I also do have
strong religious convictions about many things as well.  Yes a lot of 
people from both of these groups think they hate me.  Maybe they hate
what they think I do as one who is gay.  Ultimately, I hope these same
people recognize that it is inconsistent to say one is pro-life yet
impede the quality of life for others who choose to act upon what 
they believe they were born with-being gay.  I wouldn't be in the 
pro-life camp if I was concerned about what others thought about me.
I just know I believe the fetus should be protected from being aborted.
To me its an issue of life or death.

Wes


-- 
Wes Orr, Dude
GVSU
orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu           I love Bugs Bunny!
--------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Abortion is a SIN against God!
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 09:29:05 GMT

dhanson@nyx.cs.du.edu (David L. Hanson) writes:

] Killing babies, born or unborn, is a sin against the God that made
] everything and everyone.  Children are a heritage from the Lord to be
] trained and nurtured to worship and glorify Him.
 
Given the Above,
What does the Following have to do with it,
save but to establish that David L. Hansen in 
his tag line refutes himself.

Now that you have Mocked God by making citations
to irrelevant scriptures, and have, with the
above repudiated your commitment to christianity
by falling prey to Fetal Idolatry,

How do you deal with yourself????

] Woe unto the butchers and the ones that support them.
] 
] "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and
] whormongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have
] their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is
] the second death"  Rev 21:8
] 
] "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
] cometh unto the Father, but by me"  John 14:6
] 
] "The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in
] flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey
] not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with
] everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory 
] of his power;"  2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
] 
] I will answer no flames or mockers. 
] 
] =========================================================================
] David L. Hanson

No Flmame,

merely pointing out that you have
fallen victim to the sin of idolatry of this
modern era that has repudiated the word of God!!!!!

And unless you Repent, your Words will Be Your Judgement
Upon YOURSELF!!!!!


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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:28364 alt.politics.homosexuality:5100
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Extra, extra! God expands punishment for AIDS! (WAS What *is* Homophobia)
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:05:53 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>> = (Gordon Storga) writes:

>>If you are referring to AIDS then you are sadly mistaken.  AIDS was
>>originally a heterosexual disease believed to be spread primarily because
>>primitives practiced anal sex as a form of contraception.  See what a lack
>>of viable contraceptives leads to.

>Those heterosexual couples would never have contracted AIDS if they had
>remained monogamous. Contraceptives alone won't stop AIDS.
>See what a lack of monogamy leads to, you mean.

Ah, I see.  So now AIDS is not only "God's punishment of homosexuals" but
"God's punishment of homosexuals and anybody that screws around".
Additionally, God's apparent sloppiness leads to all those infected through
blood transfusions, medical accidents and all the other horrors AIDS has
inflicted.

Pathetic.  It must be embarrassing for intelligent Christians to put up
with this slander of their god - you know, that a purported compassionate,
loving being could possibly be such a cruel asshole.  Do you really think
you're gonna recruit anybody by scaring people with this wacko version of
the Big Enchilada?  Methinks no.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 00:40:01 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul20.181756.14315@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

[text deleted]

#This is the same Margaret Sanger who said, in one breath, that
#abortion was wrong, and then died of one? 
#
#And don't say that isn't true; Planned Parenthood themselves, in their
#big Sanger's Birthday celebration ads, talked about her death by an
#illegal abortion. 
#
#Don't even TRY to escape from this one, Garvin.

Margaret Sanger was born in 1883 and died in 1966.  

Feel free to try to squirm out of this one, Chahallney.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:27:20 GMT

In article <tgreen.712465124@pv1788.vincent.iastate.edu> tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
>In <1992Jul29.191328.22615@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>
>>In article <tgreen.712383496@pv1788.vincent.iastate.edu> tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
>>>In <1992Jul29.032349.15036@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <adams.712339545@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>>chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 ) writes:
>>>
>>>>[much rational response to irrational questions deleted]
>>>
>[ more deleted ]

[more deleted]

>>>If you can't live with that, don't have sex. period.
>>>end of discussion :-)
>
>>This is unreasonable.
>
>yes, it is.  How about if you choose to have sex, be prepared
>to deal with the possibility of pregnancy.  If you know that
>you can't handle a pregnancy, avoid getting pregnant.  

That would be ideal, but is that realistic?  Do our gonads listen to reason?
Mine sure don't. I suspect that sexual urges *often* outweigh rational
thought.  The best we can hope to do (IMO) is to use birth control and
hope it works.

To tell a woman who doesn't want to get pregnant that she shouldn't have sex
because she might is not realistic. (big word these days I guess, realistic.)

>>Unfortunately, it is only the end of your *input* on the subject; the 
>>discussion goes on whether you decide to add your opinions which is
>>unfortunate, becuase you might be that person that is able to enlighten
>>the rest of us to something we hadn't thought of.  If you stop speaking,
>>the Steve Chaneys of the world will have your point crushed under a mile
>>of garbage.
>
>I doubt that I'll enlighten anyone, probably just tick off 
>a few people.  I didn't really want to get pulled into a
>flame war.  There's too many people who pick apart every
>word that gets posted.


We don't *have* to have a flame war. I've found that it is indeed possible to
have calm,  rational discussions here that can wind up being quite productive.
Just ignore the flames (avoid making your own) and stick with it.
-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Highly Opinionated, Aging  and                      knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
            Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Fetal RTL defense, Part 2
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 20:24:32 GMT

<1992Jul23.175956.18589@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) said:
>In article <1992Jul23.163309.13095@eco.twg.com> 
>chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
>
>> Holtsinger's still plugging away on the "Abortion & Infanticide"
>> thread, still insisting that most pro-choicers believe that it's OK
>> to kill viable fetuses, and still ignoring the attempts of pro-choicers
>> to tell him what they REALLY believe. 
>
>I never said that most pro-choicers believe that it's OK to
>kill viable fetuses. That is your strawman argument. 

You've implied as much.

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

"Blatant assertions"?  You mean you don't believe that a late term fetus
is actually inside the pregnant women?  Incredible!  Heck, even Suzanne
and Chaney accept that a late term fetus is carried insdie the pergnant
woman.  If it wasn't inside her we wouldn't be having this discussion.

>> The only thing that's changed
>> is that I've gotten fed up and left, 
>
>I think you got "fed up" because you haven't understood my
>argument. 

Not unusual.  You might look to the reason you are so misunderstood here:
You don't make sense.

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

You've already admitted that some circumstances exist which justify
late-term abortion.  Why are you aksing others to remember what you said?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29342 talk.bizarre:23705
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Beware the DickSizeWars!!!!
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:55:27 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) writes:
>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

#>>> Mr Lyman, you are here with, and here to fore,
#>>> forewarned that any more postings of this sort
#>>> will be construed as an explicit Call for a
#>>> DickSizeWar, and that No Mercy will Be Shown,
#>>> No Quarters Offered.

%>> Mr. Hampe, let me inform you that, contrary to How Things Are Done
%>> in YOUR particular Town of Iniquity, in MY Town of Iniquity, it
%>> takes a lot more than QUARTERS to get a young man to show his
%>> privates.  YOU have been living cheap for far too long!!!

@> While I may not be worthy of participation in a DickSizeWar, my
@> stereo speakers are larger than any of yours.  Except maybe cj's.

>Bigger than Klipsch Choruses?!?[1]

The size of your speakers mean zip if the size of your driver doesn't
do them justice. Even *HUGE* woofers need more than a *wimpy* 50W to
get any decent response from them.

>I've often seen stereo-nerds try to pass off their mega-buck systems
>as TinySexAnimalPlaceboes.[2]

TechnoToyJunkies, these days, as even stereo-nerds are lost with the
advent of ComputerControlledWhatJaMaCallItJunkieHEavenToys.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: debunking Steve Franklin;  yet again..
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 22:22:24 GMT

<8JUL92.21131337@umbc2.umbc.edu> williamf@umbc2.umbc.edu said:
>In a previous article, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) wrote:
>>In <1992Jul4.163533.24678@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> 
>>>In article <2587@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> 
>>>dcwst8+@pitt.edu (David C Winters) writes:
>> 
>>>> I wonder if there's any correlation between being "pro-life" and being
>>>> homophobic/anti-gay...
>> 
>>> Well, considering the rabidity with which the pro-life people base their
>>> cause on their bible, and the extent to which they also oppose
>>> contraception.....
>>>
>>> I'd say that most of the typical pro-lifers are far-right types who also
>>> frown upon anything other than monagamous(sp?) heterosexuality.
>>>
>>> How about it?  Any pro-lifers out there who don't agree with this?
>> 
>>Well, Dave struck out again I'm afraid. First the point must be made,
>>that homophobic is not well defined in this thread. The Catholic church is
>>not homophobic in the least. We have no irrational response to the act
>>of homosexuality, 
>
>hmmm.  Really!!  Are you making a distinction between Catholic congregations
>and the hierarchy?  I don't think you fairly can in this case.  There have been 
>cases of homosexual couples who lived together in a long term committed 
>relationship and wanted to remain practising Catholics.  Its very difficult
>for such couples to easily find welcoming Catholic congregations.  Chances
>are they won't unless they move to a liberal part of the country and even then
>it wouldn't be easy.  This kind of moral sanction is *not* true for unmarried 
>heterosexual couples.  Its a fair assumption that neither the het. or homo. 
>couples are living in a sexless relationship.  This kind of double standard is
>clearly homophobic in nature.  The Church preaches with a certain amount of
>vehemence against homosexuality that isn't matched when the topic changes to
>unmarried het. couples.  Catholic supplicants hear this and read this to mean
>that all sin isn't equal and respond thusly. 

Steve must have missed the recent announcement from the Vatican that approved
and encouraged discrimination against gays and lesbians by all Catholics.


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: nuge@newport.med.ge.com (James A. Nugent)
Subject: Re: Catholics: Is the Fetus Ensouled?
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI
Date: 30 Jul 92 03:47:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.211059.10998@advtech.uswest.com>
steven@jaynes.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:

> Do Catholics on t.a. agree that the fetus is not ensouled?  This was the
> position staked out by Pope Pius IX.  I've seen several Catholics say
> otherwise in t.a.

> Now, The Pius IV proclamation that said this was a change to the C.C.'s
> abortion position; I'm not aware of a further "ruling".

  The _Declaration on Procured Abortion_ (1974) does not seem to take
any position on when the soul is first present, and doesn't seem to
care. The position is that abortion is a grave sin regardless of when
"ensoulment" takes place.

  The following is from n.7:

  "In the course of history the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors,
   and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine -- the various
   opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not cast doubt on
   the illicitness of of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages,
   when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not
   present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in
   the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. In
   resolving cases, approved authors were more lenient with regard to
   that early stage than with regard to later stages. But it was never
   denied that procured abortion, even during the first few days, was
   a objectively a grave sin."
			 		
--
Jim Nugent

nuge@med.ge.com

nugentj@med.ge.com
From: eeb1@panix.com (Elizabeth Bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Survivors of Abortion: The Dreaded Complication
Date: 31 Jul 92 02:53:16 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Jul23.145805.28460@pwcs.stpaul.gov>
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:

>> I will say, in passing, only that I was and am entirely sincere in 
>> the sympathies I extend to both his child and his wife.  I am deeply
>> sorry for them both.  They have to live with Chris. I have to live
>> with the terrible reply I made to this man.  May God have mercy on
>> each of us.

>Spare me the crocodile tears; you'll need them for your next "Rescue."

>My wife (who suffered greatly during her pregnancy) understands the
>implications of what I said.  My daughter (who is more interested in
>the doings of Claire and Ariel) is a younger version of her mom.
>Don't take the fact that she's more like mom than me as a reassurance,
>Mr. Kellmeyer.  They'd both likely knock your block off if they knew
>what you stood for.

>God's mercy will undoubtedly be a great source of exasperation for
>people like you.

Wonderfully put, Chris.  Pretty please, can I quote the last sentence
in a .sig file?

--
Pro-Choice    Anti-Roe    Pro-Freedom of Choice Act      - E. Elizabeth Bartley
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29316 alt.flame:11441
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: BIRDS OF A FEATHER
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:40:11 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <Bs3oIH.9rp@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified"
Franklin) writes to Mr. Keegan:
> 
>    Go away little man. You see, you state I was defending Darcy. I ask
> you to consider what he actually meant.

Gee, Stevie, it seemed abundantly clear what he meant.

> However, since dealing with you and your pro-choice mentality has become old 
> hat for me, I realize that you thrive on twisting words whenever you can.

I wouldn't have considered getting the shit kicked out of you on a regular
basis "dealing" with anything, but to each his own.
 
>    I was merely giving Darcy a chance.

Uh huh.  A chance to do _what_, exactly?
    
>    I truly believe that Darcy did not intend to poke fun at sexual abuse,
> because the initial statement seemed to imply that the individual (as an 
> adult) had partaken in child/adult sex at some time in his life.

I imagine you also truly believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.  Maybe
you and Darcy can get a group discount on that reading comprehension class
if you sign up together.  Of course, Darcy could go for a group discount
all by himself, I imagine.

>    If you're not grown up enough to consider that another individual 
> simply misinterpreted a vague and unsubstantiated post, then you shouldn't
> be posting quite so much.

I didn't consider Susan's post to be either vague or unsubstantiated.  I
didn't consider Darcy's reply to be a misinterpretation.  I believe that
Darcy knew _exactly_ what he was saying.  I believe that he said out of no
other motive than pure spite.

You're not one whit better than he is, Franklin.  What's next for you two? 
Planning to get onto talk.rape and tell people that they were asking for
it, or that they should just lie back and enjoy it?

Each of you is as hopeless and worthless as the other.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.