HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Aaargh!  What *is* th
Organization: 668, Neighbor of the Beast
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 05:06:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.011932.17475@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

   patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes...
   >It's a TSAKC thing.  You wouldn't understand.  (But keep asking Keegan,
   >though, if your BBS tends to crash when you ask him.  That can't be all bad
   >for us.) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    ^^^^^^^

   Sorry, you can't have _everything_ you want.  The crashes were merely a
   coincidence.

Like Petey's news server, maybe?  I know what you mean about not getting
everything you want, though -- just look at the Oilers game this afternoon.
Ack.

   Oh well...

   Besides, if you don't like my posts, you are free to put me in your KILL
   file.  I'm certainly not attempting to stop you.

You're not important enough to rate an entry in a killfile of mine.  I don't
killfile *anyone* with this version of Gnus, as a matter of fact.

   "What is a GOiD?"  "It'a s GOiD thing.  You wouldn't understand".

That's as may be -- I'm not the one demanding to know what it means...

    * SLMR 2.1a * !FLASH! Energizer Bunny arrested! Charged with BATTERY!

...but he made his bail and just kept going, and going, and going...:-)

(I used to use Slimer on the GTNet boards I was on...consider that tagline
stolen.) 

--PLH, waiting for those vacancies to open up on the Oiler staff
)

--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Originator: jjprice@c00076-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:10:37 GMT


In article <1993Jan8.012146.1597@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

|>Jeffrey, you suffer from three misconceptions in your post:
|>
|>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
|>>
|>>So now that we can kill anyone that uses something of another persons w/o
|>>their permission we may kill them...I think I'll go out and kill all the
|>>welfare recipients because they are using my money because I don't want
|>>them to...
|>
|>(1) "A person using my money when I don't want him to is the same as a
|>fetus using a mother's body when she doesn't want it to."
|>
We both have no say in the matter yet she can "get rid" of her problem why
can't I?

|>>Who forced the female to get pregnant? Will someone please provide some
|>>numbers here? I have heard that less than 10% of abortions are due to
|>>rape/incest/mom's life...Sounds like most of these babies were not forced.
|>
|>(2) "If a woman is seeking an abortion, then she was either raped or
|>she carelessly got pregnant when she didn't want to be."
|>
Is this always the case? Anyways it doesn't matter....she had sex and got
pregnant...baring rape which I'll deal with in a sec..the woman knowinly had
sex knew there was a chance she would get pregnant and now what face up
to her actions.....

Rape is an unfortunate crime..but you can't punish the child just because
it was the result of a crime....Do  you want to take a life just because
that life is the result of carelessness or a crime?

|>>... I fail to see how you can justify murder and killing 
|>>innocent children...as you have already stated you are doing.
|>
|>(3) "Abortion is nothing more than the murder of innocent children."
|>
That point is absolutely true...these children have done nothing
wrong but you are willing to let them die.

|>Please think about these three points, and see if you can figure out
|>why I called them 'misconceptions'.

HEEE!! HEEEE! HEEE!  :-) that's such a funny pun there.


-- 
-Jeffrey Price
_____________________________________________________________________
| "When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were |
|  able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not  |
|  to go also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with  |
|  him to the station?"                                              |
| "OBJECTION: That question ought to be taken out and shot!!"        |
|____________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Peter & Gordon don Ted don Alfred
Summary: How much of a doofus can you be? 
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.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 02:23:58 GMT

In article <nyikos.725748973@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Dec30.004116.8052@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><nyikos.725147807@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>><1992Dec22.010745.13877@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>...
>>>I posted "The Mendacity of Susan Garvin, Part 1" just now.  There will
>>>be SEVERAL more parts to this series, unlike the one-post shot against
>>>Gordon Storga, who is turning out to be much less malicious in his 
>>>accusations than Susan.  I've even developed a bit of fondness for him,
>>>as for a wayward child.  And he is the child of his parents, and of the 
>>>universe, as pointed out in the fictional dialogue with Suzanne.  He is 
>>>also a child of the 20th century, of which you will be reading more in
>>>upcoming posts, but y'all will have to wait a while unless bozos like
>>>Novak and Garvin and Mezias and Lefty and Kaflowitz decide to post 
>>>*documented* accusations against me, thereby reducing their number a
>>>hundredfold.
>
>>I'm truly touched by your open admittance of your feelings for me, Uncle
>>Peter.  May I call you Uncle Peter?
>
>Sure, unless there is an SAT-type in-joke involved, like somebody allowing
>others to call him "Uncle" is sufficient reason to flame him for the
>rest of his net.life.
>
>>Thanks.
>
>You're welcome.

Gee, Peter, I don't suppose you'd mind if I called you Uncle also?  I mean,
I've already got a Daddy, and you sound like _such_ a perfect person to be
my Uncle.  We could go horseback riding during the summer, and...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=Ex-Boyfriend of Scott.  Ex-Girlfriend of Lynn, Sarah, James, Larry, Linda,   =
= Susan, and Rocker.  Space Reserved For Patrick, Gordon, and Druiex... (FWA!)=
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Stupid Non-abortion related flame of Dean Kaflowitz. Hit 'N' now if not interested.
Date: 4 Jan 93 23:24:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Mr. Johnston admits that he doesn't know what the rule really says,
but he flames Dean for being wrong, anyway.  I'm certainly not
impressed.

Making an accusation without proof is fairly common.  Specifically
requesting that no one correct the accusation is less common.  I'll
give him a 0 for integrity and a 7 for creativity.

Susan
From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 9 Jan 93 00:58:11 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

>---
>parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>|The problem is, there is a bit of a difference between "pro-choice" and
>|"pro-abortion". "pro-abortion" holds that abortion is not wrong. "pro-choice"
>|holds that abortion is wrong, but not so wrong that people should not be
>|allowed to do it.

ie, the choice is left to the mother.

>Nope.   A "pro-abortion" person prefers abortion over other options.  
>A "pro-choice" person feels that the choice to get an abortion
>or give a resulting baby up for adoption or keep a resulting baby 
>is the pregnant woman's choice, and nobody else's.

Are you saying this because this is your position or know someone that has
this position?  Have you ever heard of someone who "pushes" the option of
abortion as the "best choice" in *every* case of an unplanned pregnancy?
(think carefully before you answer that)

If not, why waste a term implying it?  All defensible "positions" give the
final choice to the mother; some of them would ban one of the possible choices
--though the mother can "chose" to break the law, and suffer the consequences,
if she choses--but they all acknowledge that people have a right to make their
own choices (from the "allowed" options).  It would be impossible to defend a
position that includes running everyone's lives; that would be an example of
"pro-force" which everyone likes to toss around improperly.

A better term for pushing abortion may be "strong-abortion" or "push-abortion".
Let's save the "nice sounding" ones for the more realistic positions.

>cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 16:40:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.055403.19129@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
}From article by gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis):
}> As long as we are supposing about what Jesus would or would not do,
}> I thought I'd play too...
}> 
}> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach):
}> 
}> }Can you honestly picture Jesus Christ helping some woman abort a child
}> }that His beloved Father is in the active process of knitting together?
}> 
}> By the same token, can you honestly picture him an advocate of any 
}> secular law to attempt to ban or restrict abortion?
}
}
}Sure: "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, but render unto God
}that which is God's."
}
}He had no problem with earthly authorities.   He even submitted himself
}to trial and execution by them.

In case you hadn't noticed, Suzanne, advocacy is a little different
than submission.  To make it a bit clearer, you can submit (even
very peacefully) to something which you do not advocate.  

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:38:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.032032.14586@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu 
(Stephen A Chaney) writes:

Mr. Chaney, kudos to you for doing this, even if you say it is under
protest.  

Mr. Nyikos, if you had anything to do with this, kudos to you too.

Mr. Humphrey, as far as I am concerned, you don't owe anyone anything.


so much for the t.a love fest.  I think you are all scum, but hardly
as low as Kevin Darcy.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:45:06 GMT

> = (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>> = hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>>Why do you feel pregnant women should not have a 
>>right to refuse to have their bodies used to support a fetus?

>A woman has the right to avoid conception. Once her voluntary actions
>have created a human being and placed that human in a position of 
>dependency, she has obligated herself to act in accord with that human's
>right to life.

Great.  So since women have the right to avoid conception, then you'd
allow abortions in cases of failed birth control. 

You're not there yet, but on the right track...

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55063 talk.religion.misc:25764 alt.atheism:25599
From: au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 11 Jan 1993 01:56:31 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) says:

    [the rest deleted]


>Bill Clinton is NOT the anti-Christ.  Therefore, Christians are to follow
>the laws he signs, per Paul's letter to the Romans.  The only resistance 
>should be to laws that compell us to personally violate God's will.


> -Steve

Linda Zinn writes:

I've been following this thread for a few days now, and I think Steve has
exhibited one of the cooler heads and a loving, noninflammatory approach. 
Although I agree with his conclusion, I have to disagree with this
reasoning. Romans 12 discusses various details of God's plan for order in the
church. For example, "...all members have not the same office" (Rom. 12:4);
"Be kindly affectioned one to another....(Rom. 12:10); etc. 

I don't believe that the "higher powers" referred to in Rom 13:1 can
possibly refer to government leaders; rather, it seems to refer to
authorities in the Body of Christ, elsewhere referred to as ruling elders,
etc. This concept is a hard one for modern Christians to swallow because
we have seen so many examples of the misuse of position or authority 
among Christian leaders. That doesn't make God wrong...just points out the
weakness of men.

If you look at Romans 13:4, continuing the context of verse 1, it says,
"He is a minister of God to thee for good." Was Richard Nixon
a minister of God to us for good? Was any secular leader, just by virtue
of the fact that he was elected?

I agree with Steve though. None of us has the right to impose our views
on this subject on anyone else, least of all the government. How would it
be if the government decided to make abortion *mandatory* in certain 
cases. I, as a pro-choice Christian, would kick and scream just as loudly
as I do over any attempts to legislate the opposite.

Linda

-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
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.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 15:48:30 GMT

In article <markp.725742291@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>Having sex = Chancing the possibility of pregnancy. (Simple biological
>fact.) Therfore: Consent to sex = consent to chance of pregnancy.
>
Which does not equal consent to staying pregnant, no matter how much
you might dream that it does.



--
                  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: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein - you can't prove otherwise; it must be me)
Subject: You had to encourage me... (formerly: Let me state my view...)
Originator: judi@rac2.wam.umd.edu
Organization: Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force, Washington, D.C.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 09:44:18 GMT

What: <1993Jan7.233902.5458@ncsu.edu>
Who:  jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)

>1. A fetus is a human being were as life begins at conception...you
>   can't prove otherwise so it must be true.

*rolls his eyes*

I can't prove otherwise, so it must be true?  Oh, geez.

Elvis is alive on Mars.  There are exactly 223 chemical elements.  You will
be hit by a crazed toddler on a tricycle in your lifetime.  In a previous
life, I was Paul Revere's horse (gratuitous straight line to see who will
sink to the cheap shot).  Cats have souls.  You can't prove otherwise, so...

Really, Mr. Price, where *are* you coming from here?

>2. A person has a right to do whatever they wish so long as they don't
>   infringe upon another person...now the baby is using the body of the
>   mother we can say it may be removed...BUT...this will result in the
>   death of the fetus. So the lesser of the 2 evils must be followed and
>   the life of the fetus is more imp. than the choice of the mother...in
>   the event of life threating situation both lives are equal and it is 
>   then a personal choice.

Define "life-threatening."  Immediate, 100% chance of death?  50%?  10?
And besides, you have not established personhood of the fetus.

[Conclusion based on faulty premises deleted]

>   Somalia OK because we are trying to save
>   lives even if we do end up killing a few...

So you're in favor of killing babies born without a brain stem for organs,
then, since by actively killing one baby we can give life to many more?

Oh, Doooooooug.... Suzaaaaaaane... might you want to respond to Mr. Price
here?

>   The same with abortion of course
>   a few women will die perfoming illegal abortions but we will save many more.

Thus proving that fetuses are more important than women.

I don't mean this as a flame, but I recognize that there is no way to say it
without it sounding like one.  So be it:

It seems that most every time you post, you bury yourself ever deeper in a
pit of faulty logic, emotionalism and really perverted conclusions such as
the above.  Your views could use a major logic overhaul.
--
     _____     __      __               -=* 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,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:22:27 GMT

> = (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>Abortion is not a passive act.  

Profound.

>It is an act of violence and aggression.  The government should outlaw
> murder.

Would you little boys get a dictionary?  Lebow has the same defect.

You see, the WORD "murder" *means* "unlawful killing of a human being".

If the government actually *outlawed murder*, then guess what?  You
could kill anyone you wanted to with impunity.  Guess what else?
Abortion isn't murder.

When you can't even use English correctly, why do you think you're going
to change anyone's mind?  You start out already sounding a bit thick.




-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:44:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.013330.3014@netcom.com> 
bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>>>>From article by steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak):

>>>>> considering forced birth as the alternative.

>>>> Such a laugh!   It's no more "forced" that breathing.  In fact far less so.

>>> Then please explain the ripping of flesh, for starters. Sounds like
>>> *force* to me. Breathing doesn't do that....

>> But ceasing to breath brings instant death, doesn't it.  100% of the time.

> (1) Hold your breath for ten seconds.  Did you die instantly?

She said "ceasing to breath" as in "permanent cessation", not
"temporary cessation".  It may not bring instant death, but
it's close enough for horse-shoes and hand grenades.


>Brian Kendig                             


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54446 alt.flame:17694 talk.bizarre:43807
From: dac@prolix.apana.org.au (Andrew Clayton)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 11:45:37 GMT
FollowUp-To: talk.abortion,alt.flame,talk.bizarre,misc.test
Organization: More like Dis~, really.
X-Newsreader: Arn V1.00

In article <1idnljINN6sf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, Dave Polewka writes:

>  David Andrew Clayton -- anagrams

Now that was *totally* unexpected!

ObSheesh.

Dac
--
dac@prolix.apana.org.au              David Andrew Clayton.           // _| _  _
dac@prolix.sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au      Canberra, Australia           \X/ (_](_](_
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 15:15:27 GMT

In article <C0EKLv.CI@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>In article <bob1.726256611@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>>In <ueff8ho@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>>
>>>---
>>>psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) snipes:
>>>|>>|> >You are a bitter person Muriel.  
>>
>>Paul, to my recollection you haven't been posting here for very
>>long. Of course, you may have been lurking in the shadows for
>>some time, but there is no way to tell.
>>
>>However, if you work at it really hard, you might achieve the
>>level of humanity that Muriel has shown, so it might behove you
>>to cease making snap judgements. Just a thought.
>>
[...]
>>I'd tell you some of the things I've been called, but I normally
>>don't use such language.
>>
>I'm not sure why you left off the invective Muriel rattled off just prior to me
>making that comment.  I don't doubt her humanity, but I'm surprised at how
>quick people are to jump to name-calling as a first resort.  I'm sorry, but
>that sounds pretty bitter to me. 
>
	Maybe she just had one line too many of the smug, self-righteous stuff
you've been posting here, my man.  I've been tempted to turn on the flame-
thrower once or twice myself, but have resisted said temptation because I know
how pointless it is -- and how boring it is to everyone else.
	You can't repeatedly attack people and their beliefs without expecting
the occasional return shot.  And so far you seem more interested in attack
and counterattack than actual discussion.
	Which puts you right in the mainstream on t.a, unfortunately.
	If you can't stand the heat, either get out of the kitchen or do your
bit to cool things down, OK?

The_Doge
ObQuote:	"If you convinced me
		And I convinced you
		Would there not still be
		Two points of view?"
			-- "Argument", by Richard Armour
Newsgroups: talk.abortion