HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: What *is* Homophobia (formerly: SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS...)
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:52:03 GMT

Wow!  Forgach took the bait!  I feel honored ...

In article <1992Jul23.012328.16153@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article <1992Jul22.211155.13409@amhux2.amherst.edu>, by
>twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce):
>
>> Either monogamy or contraception will halt the spread of AIDS.

She missed, of course, my REAL mistake: contraception in general will
not halt or slow the spread of AIDS.  Condoms, specifically, will.

>Don'tcha get it?  Condoms were _never_designed_ to stop a virus millions of
>times smaller than a sperm.    WhatEVER gives you the idea that it would??

Elementary biology.  Go sit in on a couple of high school science
classes and learn how virii are transmitted.  (Hint: they don't go
anywhere without some form of transport.  If they did, we'd all be
infected by now.)

>> People aren't monogamous.  Welcome to the real world.
>
>Many people aren't very smart either.

She's right, folks.  Take it from someone in a position to KNOW.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You mean there are TWO of you, Pierce?
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  God help us all."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Major Charles Emerson Winchester III
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: How many deaths are insignificant? (was Re: THE THIRD TRIMESTER MYTH.
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 06:24:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.212034.28968@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>
>I have no objections with up to the moment of birth abortions.

Do you have any objection to killing a viable z/e/f just prior to such an
abortion, where the killing is of no discernible medical benefit to the 
pregnant woman?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:45:20 GMT

In article <85fmkv_.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

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

>> tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU writes:
>>> In some article...dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>>But why doesn't the fetus enjoy the same right to bodily autonomy? 

>>> I think the big reason is because it is not autonomous.  Show me a fetus
>>> that cannot survive without a host to leech off of, and then I'd agree that
>>> it was autonomous.[deletion]

>>  Show me a newborn infant that can survive more than a day or three without
>> someone to feed/care for it.  It must leech food and resources from outside
>> sources too.  Abandoning an infant is a crime, I believe.

> The key (and embarrasingly obvious) difference is that, like any other 
> person, an infant doesn not depend on any _one_ person for its survival; 
> care can (and often is) transferred to other people.  

But if a newborn infant can't be transferred to another person, then
the infant would not be "autonomous" by the original definition, and
the infant would not enjoy the right to bodily autonomy. People could
kill infants by placing them in situations where only one person 
could care for them.  

> [.. rest deleted ..]
>Ray Fischer


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Creating Real Choices
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world  
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:48:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.203331.8104@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>In <1992Jul23.184638.19161@athena.cs.uga.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu writes:
>
>> 	So why don't people from both sides get together and discuss
>> these issues, and leave the discussion of abortion out so that we
>> might discuss other ways of helping women, families, and children?  We
>> might find that we agree more often than not, and we might actually be
>> able to make a difference that cannot help but affect the number of
>> women who seek abortions. We might be able to make life better for
>> those born, and those yet to be born.
>> Terrance Heath 
>
>  Hello, another semi-rational human being.  I think I agreed with every
>word in your post.  Maybe if we keep yelling enough for real solutions
>somebody out there will listen.

I second this. 

BUT......................
...............................
...................................

Where do I find a solution-oriented organization where I can work
without hearing the abortion issue 20 times a day and where pro-lifers
aren't talked down like dogs? 

Like, for instance, my aunt's welfare office where just this last
Friday, four pro-lifers got pissed at the last pro-life-bashing
session, and brought the house down in a major debate that made my
aunt give up putting her 2 cents into the issue? 

Perhaps we need to join these organizations in groups so we can shove
these pro-choicers back and force them to respect us. Either that or
we'll give them hearing aids, one or the other. 

For pro-lifers, WRT joining these efforts, safety only comes in
numbers, Mr. Miller. Those folks are out there to slam, humiliate,
degrade, and downright make life hard for you. Make no mistake about
it - when pro-lifers enter something new, they should go in numbers if
they have any sense to them, or else they'll get chewed. 

Life hardly ever produces simpler facts than that. 

>  From one pro-life type who's into realism.

I sure hope you're deeply into it because these pro-choicers, while
they'll claim I'm not accurately describing them, will take the first
chance they can get to smash your face into realism. 

But I don't think you're the kind of person who'd give them the chance. ]-) 

===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: How many deaths are insignificant? 
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 04:46:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>Yeah, who cares? (BTW, I'm not pro-life). 
                        ----------------
?!?!?

Quack quack.

Too obscure?  Well, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, ...

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 00:35:39 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  <3707@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>  sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> In article <1992Jul24.160408.11500@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory
> #In article <1992Jul22.023334.257962@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvi
> ##
> ##Pity is right.  I don't understand the relevance of the 1974
> ##market for OB/GYN's in Dallas, either.
>
> Rather than making any attempt to tell us what relevance
> he sees in the 1974 market for OB/GYN's in Dallas, Clause
> chose to reply to an old article written by a third
> person.  Could someone explain why he did that?

Perhaps he's too embarrassed to admit that he doesn't really know what an
OB/GYN *is*?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Abortion is a SIN against God!
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:07:10 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.

What about children of Buddhists?  Jews?  Wiccans?  Muslims?  Druids?

> Woe unto the butchers and the ones that support them.

My grand dad was a butcher.[1]  Watch what you're saying!

> "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

I have a feeling that God's justice is far more sophisticated and all-
encompassing than anything we could imagine.  I also have a feeling that
the justice he metes out to 'sinners' will be rather disappointing for
people like you.  Why?  Because I also have a feeling that His love and
mercy are deeper and more all-embracing than anything we could imagine.

What does this have to do with abortion?

> "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

Yep.  That's what He said.  What does this have to do with abortion?  Notice
that Jesus and the Bible are silent about abortion.  It seems that this is 
an issue that God wants us to work out on our own.

> "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

What does this have to do with abortion?

> I will answer no flames or mockers.

Heaven forbid that the effort involved in answering flamers or mockers
should cause an original thought to pop into your head.

[1] We used to get the most unbelievably huge Thanksgiving turkeys!!!

-- 
Chris Lyman - email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /   "I belong to no organized
#include <std_disclaimers>                   /   political party.  I am a
R.O.a.C.H   --   charter member              /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:33:00 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  <1992Jul26.231808.21215@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <1992Jul25.171608.7421@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
> >In  <1992Jul25.054019.15284@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wri
> >> In article <1992Jul24.234126.4841@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writ
> >> >In  <BrwyvJ.BuM@news.cso.uiuc.edu>  slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kel
> >> >
> >> >> Induced abortion is the subject of this group, not spontaneous abortion.
> >> >
> >> >When did they rename it to "talk.abortion.induced"?
> >>
> >> Larry, put a sock in it.
> >
> >Funny, but I don't remember you telling anyone else to "put a sock in it"
> >when previous discussions of abortifacients arose.
>
> Persecution complex, Larry?

No, merely pointing out that discussion of non-induced abortions
(abortifacients) has been going on in this group for years without
you or anyone else suggesting it was off-topic.

> >> in LEGAL terms, "abortion" always means an intentional, deliberate act.
> >> Since we discuss the legal and somewhat-related aspects of abortion here,
> >> "induced" would be redundant in the newsgroup name.
> >
> >It would also be incorrect, since it would rule out other discussion which
> >is appropriate for this group.
>
> In your opinion, that is. You've been wrong about t.a "appropriateness"
> issues before, Larry. How quickly you forget the big child-support fiasco...

I don't believe I was wrong.  You seem to have forgotten that they *did*
change the alt.child-support FAQ to remove the suggestion that the topic
was appropriate for this group, so apparently I'm not the only one who
feels I was correct.

> >As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I
> >agree that *generally* when we talk about abortion, we're referring to
> >induced abortion.  However, it's important to remember that when many of
> >the Fanatic Fundies refer to banning abortion, they're including banning
> >the use of abortifacients - e.g., the birth control pill.
>
> Why must we reduce ourselves to their level of semantic violence, Larry?
> Banning abortion and banning the pill are two separate issues. I know that.
> You know that. If we allow them to control our semantics in this fashion,
> then we concede them a small victory, just as we concede a small semantic
> victory when we allow crap like "abortion kills a child" to pass without
> comment.

As I said, I think it's a useful reminder occasionally.

> Besides, Kellmeyer was AGREEING with you that "abortion" properly means
> "induced abortion". Why look a gift jackass in the mouth?

As to why it's a useful reminder, see my following response to said jackass.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 25 Jul 92 07:06:26 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul25.054019.15284@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

#Larry, put a sock in it. You _know_ how much I hate to agree with Kellmeyer,
#but he's absolutely right here -- in LEGAL terms, "abortion" always means an 
#intentional, deliberate act. Since we discuss the legal and somewhat-related 
#aspects of abortion here, "induced" would be redundant in the newsgroup name.

Prove it, Darcy.  

Show us some laws that refer to abortion alone, without speaking of
"procuring" or "inducing" or without using an adjective such as
"criminal" or "induced."   Show us where the legal definition of
abortion differs from the medical definition.  

Susan
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Guttmacher - The Preferred Choice
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:25:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes ...
>Has anyone else heard the statistic that AG informations
>points to the fact that 90% of those who have had
>an abortion would have picked another option, if 'a good
>alternative' was available or something like that?
>
>Sounds like the great desire for The Choice (The Right) does 
>not mean that the ones who are making the choice think that
>abortion is the The Preferred Choice.

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

Lessee.  Conservatives want to reduce government spending for 
child care.  The religious feel that anyone getting caught
having sex outside of marriage is a sinner and should be 
punished.  Conservatives want to reduce spending on schools.
The religious think that people shouldn't use contraception.
Conservatives oppose laws requiring maternity leave.  Both 
groups oppose sex education.

What's wrong with this picture?

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: 25 Jul 92 09:48:40 CDT

In article <1992Jul25.012638.15826@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson):
>> In article dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>
>>>A newborn infant sucking on its mother's breast is not "autonomous",
>> 
>> Excuse me, Doug.  I Have nursed three infants, and these 
>> particular three precocious little darlings were able to
>> pull away from the breast at will, and, of their own volition,
>> decide to cry for awhile or take a nap instead of nursing.
>
>I suppose you could have then just handed the baby to _anybody_ to nurse
>when you didn't feel like doing it youself.    (And you darn well know as
>well as I do that breastmilk is far healthier for babies than formula is.)
>
No argument there.  However, there are lots of us who continue
to survive after having been brought up on formula.  How well
would most modern urbanites fare if the food distribution system
(supermarkets and trucking industry) suddenly collapsed?  The
only nutritionally autonomous folk around are Mormons, and old
hippies who are still living in the _Whole Earth Catalog_.
Physical autonomy is a different thing.
> 
>> Perhaps the ones you've nursed were different.
>
>No.  I don't think so.
>
Me either.  I think newborns assert more physical autonomy
than most adults do, in some respects.  They are not bound
by the constraints of politeness, and are therefore surprisingly
difficult to manipulate.  When they eat, sleep, or stop 
crying is not under anyone else's control.  

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Bible says abortion is murder?  WHERE?
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:52:28 GMT

In article <5628@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> 
tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

> Hello there, Bible scholars!

Hello there, I'd like to ask your opinion of the following quote:


     "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
we want to be precise)..."
  -- Gloria Feldt,
     chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona


>--Teddi


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The C word
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 19:19:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes ...
>I'm not at all different from women who have sex.  When I do something
>and the forseeable happens, I think I should deal with it in a
>responsible way, meaning a way that takes into account the value of the
>persons and things involved.  If I were injured in an automobile
>accident I would get medical attention because medical care for injuries
>does not destroy anything of value.

Do you advocate making abortion illegal knowing that it would destroy
many women who are presumably also of great value?  BTW, medical care 
_does_ destroy things of value.  Anyone who's received a bill for medical
care knows that it doesn't come cheap.

Which has more value, a 6 week embryo, or a 23 year old woman?

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Garvin gets stabbed in the back! (was Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:41:40 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Jul24.211316.19577@wuecl.wustl.edu> dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) stabs 'em in the back with:  
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>>##		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
>
><3691@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>> I think that I know the source of Chaney's new .sig lie.
>> I think that some adult who supports legal abortion said
>> "fuck you" to him.
>
>Isn't he referring to a court case in the news a few days ago?

Yes, I am. 

Thanks for stabbing these pro-choice folks in the back. We pro-lifers
will thank you heartily for it... 


===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: steve franklin: homophobe or not?
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:13:19 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <nse5nu4@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com writes:

> ---
> From talk.bizarre & alt.sex, of all places:

  So why'd you bring it here?  Character assassination(sp)?

> In article <Bs225t.LI5@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
> |This is ridiculous. I am afraid that I no longer can sit passively during 
> |this thread. Homophobia is an IRRATIONAL response to homosexuals and 
> |their practices. It is NOT irrational to be disgusted by the concept of two
> |(wo)men having sex. Although one should tolerate and leave alone such men and
> |women, they should never be forced to accept, practice, or condone it.
> 
> This man claims not to be a homophobe?  Ugh.  I think he 
> disgusts me.

  And you get on my nerves.  So?  Neither has diddly-squat to do with abortion.
Trundling out far afield just to get some flame material for an already flame-
ridden newsgroup like this one is pretty low.

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 		               *
********************************************************************************
From: vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Bible says abortion is murder?  WHERE?
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:24:16 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Unversity of Cincinnati, ECE Dept

In article <JBATES.92Jul22181129@pinocchio.encore.com> jbates@encore.com (John W. Bates) writes:
>. . . until it can be shown incontrovertibly that a fetus is worthy 
>of protection at the expense of the woman involved, any belief about 
>that, positive or negative, *is* purely religious.  

Wrong.  Nat Henthoff of _The Village Voice_ has been promulgating 
nonreligious pro-life arguments for several years now.

--
Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: steve franklin: homophobe or not?
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:15:43 GMT

---
From talk.bizarre & alt.sex, of all places:

In article <Bs225t.LI5@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
|This is ridiculous. I am afraid that I no longer can sit passively during 
|this thread. Homophobia is an IRRATIONAL response to homosexuals and 
|their practices. It is NOT irrational to be disgusted by the concept of two
|(wo)men having sex. Although one should tolerate and leave alone such men and
|women, they should never be forced to accept, practice, or condone it.

This man claims not to be a homophobe?  Ugh.  I think he 
disgusts me.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Oh, you're a bigot all right, you just feel that saying you have the 
right to be one means you're liberal.  If it didn't happen so often, 
it would be funny."  Mark Sobolewski, in talk.religion.misc
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.kevin-darcy