HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:56:53 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

><adams.712206449@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) said:
>>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>><adams.710692270@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) said:
>>>>Not at all...God created everything...whether or not it's literally as
>>>>Genesis says, or simply over the course of time is immaterial to the
>>>>concept...
>>
>>>If your god is 'uncreated' meaning he wasn't created, then that means the
>>>your god didn't create himself.  Therefore he didn't create everything.
>>>Now if you are claiming that he did create himself then what was he before
>>>he created himself.
>>
>>God has created all that has been created.  He has always been, always will
>>be...He is an uncreated, eternal being.

>Ah, the age old question...  What was he the day before he became an 
>uncreated eternal being?

Since God is outside of time, there was no 'day before'...God always was,
always is, always will be...

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Preservation of Ones Species
Date: 31 Jul 92 08:49:19 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Jul30.182450.19786@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <92361@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
:
:: I remember Suzanne Forgach arguing that all (at least mammalian) species
:: do not kill their young, and that as humans this should be natural to us
:: as well. All as an argument against any abortion.
::
:: Apparently, the male pecking order in lion prides is so competitive that
:: when the honcho dies or leaves the pride, the second-in-command male kills
:: all of the newborn cubs of the former leader. 
:
:After a male lion drives out a rival male lion from the pride,
:the new male lion will often kill the rival male lion's cubs 
:because that's the only way to get the lioness into "heat".
:After the cubs are killed, the male lion can mate with the
:lioness and pass his genes onto the next generation of lions.
:Since the victorious male lion will often be stronger and braver
:than the loser, this will have the effect of removing the
:weaker lion's genes from the gene pool and substituting
:the stronger lion's genes. 
:
:I don't think you want to apply this idea to the human race.

	I guess that makes you an ultraliberal, a believer in social
programs to help all those losers who ought to simply starve.

/Loren
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: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:12:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.162414.8358@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

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

>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>> If you use intelligence as a criteria for personhood status, then 
>> the late-term fetus and the newborn infant should have the same 
>> personhood status.

> You'll get no argument from me there. Now see (2).
> They DO have the same personhood status, but they're not full
> persons.

What is a "full person"? Are newborn infants "half-persons", 
or are they "non-persons" who deserve special protection, 
like a dog or a cat? 

And how does your position square with the 14th amendment to the
Constitution which gives equal protection under the law to all 
citizens of the US? Would you oppose changing that amendment 
to deny full citizenship status to newborn infants? 

> [.. (2) deleted ..]
>> If the late-term fetus and the woman are both persons, then shouldn't
>> they share the risk associated with detachment? Unless the late-term
>> fetus is not a person, I can't see how you can completely discount the 
>> risk of death to the fetus. 

> I'm not prepared to grant a late term fetus full personhood status--clearly,
> as I certainly don't intend for it to be permitted to vote, drive, etc.

I think a "person" should be defined as an entity who possesses the
right to life, not necessarily those who possess certain civil rights. 

> I'm prepared to PROTECT it as a State decision provided that that
> protection doesn't infringe upon the woman's health in a significant
> fashion.

I think you need to define "significant" and "health". I don't see
how you will be able to defend your position if you arbitrarily 
define "significant risk" as being "X times more dangerous" to
the woman's health. How can you possibly defend a particular
choice for the value of "X"?  

>-Ekr


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Some useful statistics
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 01:01:54 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@



I don't claim omniscience, Kellmeyer.  

I have discussed the Reardon "study" here many time before.  I
really hope that you are not challenging my claim that his
sample was hopelessly biased.  

I will, in time, research the morbidity/mortality claims by
Hilgers and post the results.  (I can't promise instant results,
but I will do the research.)  

Just out of curiosity, do you read articles and books which
challenge the validity of anti-abortion studies?

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: WANT YOUR OPINION HEARD?
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 16:40:07 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul25.151026.13529@cshl.org> boutell@cshl.org (Tom Boutell) writes:
#In article <3694@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##Given your praise for Chaney/Hall's flight of fancy, some of
##us would be, well, embarassed to write for your magazine.

#
#This is the attitude that's driving me nuts. I don't agree with him
#either, but at least he made an effort. Remember, I haven't previously
#frequented this group; all I know is what was submitted to me, which
#was a decently - written piece. All I've heard from my fellow
#pro - choicers is "how dare you print him, I wouldn't think of being
#printed in the same magazine with him, I'd rather sit on my butt and
#then flame you when the magazine comes out with solely pro - life
#material." Which will be your own fault. If you're trying to promote
#your point of view as opposed to his, you're doing a miserable job of it.
#I'm doing my level best not to make a flame of this; my apologies
#if I've gone a bit over the line.

I did not say "How dare you print him...", I said that it would
be embarassing to be considered as a good writer by someone 
who believes that Chaney's piece is well-written. 

#If you disagree with him, refute him line by line. Be my guest. I'll
#print it. You have no excuse to blame the magazine and tell me
#how "embarrassing" it is. 

It is not necessary to refute something line by line when the
thesis is incorrect.

#Like the political system, the magazine should be open to those
#of multiple views. I hope you're not planning to stay home in November
#on polling day because it's much too "embarrassing" to step into a
#voting booth Bush supporters have been in. 

I have yet to see anyone argue that your magazine should only
represent one view.  (I'm starting to understand why you
were impressed with Chaney's skills, though, since you, too,
want people to argue against a strawman.)  I've seen decent
arguments for the anti-abortion view, but the piece that you
praise as "excellent" is not one of them.

I'm criticizing your editorial skills, not your lack of
censorship.  You seem to not know the difference.  

Susan




Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex,soc.singles,alt.peeves
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Neccesary and sufficient conditions
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:28:11 GMT

> = (Rob Mayoff) writes:
>> = (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>>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.

>Please answer me This: How do You decide what to capitalize?  I can See
>neither Rhyme Nor Reason To Your Upper-casement.  

What rationale is used, and it's the same reason neither you nor I will
ever understand:

	 it's drieux spin on germane topics

I know; sounds like something that helps bald guys, huh?



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Divided... With Remainder
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:01:17 GMT

From article <1992Jul13.212854.12030@clipper.ingr.com>, by katy@clipper.ingr.com (Katy Yanda):
> In article <1992Jul2.203202.2657@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
> [Discussion deleted for brevity]
>> 
>> Far more people die by abortion than die by war.  And those who die by
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> war and capital punishment are generally big enough to defend themselves
>> or avoid the circumstance in the first place.   You can't say that about
>> defenseless unborn children.  Can you.
>> 
> [more deletions] 
>> 
>> Suzanne Forgach
> 
> Recent statistics published by the World Health Organisation show that
> 1440 women die every day from childbirth while 530(approximately) die
> from abortion. Now if you are going to add into that abortion figure
> the fetuses, the figure is roughly about 1100 deaths per day. That's
> still less than the figure for deaths from childbirth. 
> 
> So, let's see some statistics and figures for deaths in war, Suzanne.
> 
> Katy  

Your numbers are wrong Katy.  55 million unborn babies worldwide die by 
abortion every year.  That is 55,000,000/365 deaths every day.   The world
is not losing 55,000,000 lives a year to ordinary war.  It _is_ losing
55,000,000 lives a year to the war on the unborn.

Suzanne.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:33:18 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  <BrwD8t.2vv@news.cso.uiuc.edu>  slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>
> >In  <1992Jul24.034931.8710@wuecl.wustl.edu>  dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) w
> >> >}<1992Jul21.004136.9063@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>
> >> Obviously, I can not speak for Gregory Clausen, but when I use
> >> "abortion" here and when I see "abortion" used here, there is
> >> no doubt in my mind that what is being discussed is induced
> >> abortion.
>
> >I can't speak for Mr. Clausen either (nor would I want to), and
> >my idea of what "abortion" refers to is what you described, but
> >*if* Mr. Clausen is also opposed to abortifacients (e.g., the birth
> >control pill and the I.U.D.), then the above objections do apply.
> >Something that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting is clearly
> >not stopping a beating heart (no matter how liberally you wish to
> >define "heart"), and this would (I would hazard) constitute the
> >majority of cases.
>
> Look, the CDC only counts induced abortion, i.e. an abortion performed at
> an abortion clinic or a hospital using suction curettage, D & E, etc.
> It does *NOT* count uses of the "morning-after" pill.  The 1.6 million
> figure that goes into the census books each year is for SURGICAL abortions.

OK.

> EVERY abortion (by the CDC counting definition) stops a beating heart.

"By the CDC counting definition" implies that they *define* abortion as
surgical abortion, which is not true.  What they're counting is abortions
that are performed, as opposed to spontaneous abortions or fertilized
eggs that failed to implant due to the use of abortifacients.  As I stated
above, I believe that the number of induced abortions is small in comparison.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: tpehrson@javelin.sim.es.com (tim clinkenpeel)
Subject: Re: ABORTION PILL
Reply-To: tpehrson@javelin.sim.es.com
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:59:12 GMT

>From article by nick@cmn10.Stanford.EDU (Nick Porcaro):
>> 
>> Hi.  As a pro-choicer, I'm curious to know what people on both sides of  
>> the fence think of the "Leona" controversy. I'm from the same hometown as  
>> she so I have a different angle on this. I'd like to hear others'  
>> opinions.  Let me assert that I feel she did what was right for her, and  
>> that I was waiting for someone to do this, curious to know what the  
>> results would be.

then forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>I think it is horrible of her to be using her own child as a political
>football. 

i didn't know she had children, just a foetus

>And then she intends to kill it anyway.  

you're a little backwards suzzzzzy (but we already knew that:  your nose runs
and your feet smell):  first came the abortion idea, THEN came the political
mumbo-jumbo.

>She is proving herself
>to be a remarkably cruel mother.

all the more reason to abort the little tadpole.

...unless you're willing to adopt--HAR!

>Suzzzzanne.

-- 
------+- acceptance not condemnation.  rehabilition not incarceration -+------
i exclusively represent myself.  WARNING: my messages are offensive to morons!
|`````````` for every grain of sand that is washed up on the land '''''''''''|
|_____ there's another mermaid smiling and another searching fisherman ______|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Autonomy (was Re: Abortion and Infanticide)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:37:39 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  <1992Jul22.164302.460@hemlock.cray.com>  mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
> In the first place, it is difficult to imagine a
> self-governing or self-directing state for an entity
> which is completely contained within the body of
> another.

How about the Vatican?  (Hmmm - maybe there's a connection there...  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: If Men Could Get Pregnant. . .
Date: 26 Jul 92 18:51:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.v3kmdhr.ray
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
>> So all you Pro-Choicers out there, vote women into office (Pro-Choice ones)

>Is this the same Jonathan Sheir who wrote:
>Subject: Abortion is Murder!!!
>> I don't understand how you people can even debate such a clear cut issue.
>> Abortion is murder and there is no way to deny it.  These supposed 
>> "Pro-Choice" people are supporting the killing of little babies.
[...]
>> If this country is not careful, it is going to feel the wrath of God, 
>> and it will not be pretty.

>I think you should apologize to every pro-lifer for slandering them 
>by posting this inflammatory dreck behind the guise of being a pro-lifer.
>It's quite obvious that you are actually a pro-choicer. 

You're right.  It was entirely too realistic to work well as a parody.
Of course, one of the problems we pro-choicer's have is the difficulty
of parodying pro-lifers without being taken seriously.  It's nigh impossible
to come up with a pro-life statement that's more ridiculous than the real 
thing.

:-)
-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: THE RELATIVE RISKS.
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:46:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.012444.13048@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> 
bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>
> In the amount of time that it has taken me to
> type this post, it is probable that some woman in America died in
> childbirth.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the mortality rate for childbirth
around the same order as the rate of third trimester abortions?
(Something like 10 per 100,000?). It seems a bit hypocritical of
you to downplay the rate of third trimester abortions and yet 
dramatize the mortality rate for childbirth in such an emotional 
fashion. 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers"  Are Really Pro-Death
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:46:40 GMT

---
|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.
|>A lot of these people are also against the use of fetal tissue for
|>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.

I'll keep count, over the next week or so, of the pro-"lifers"
who are against medical use of fetal tissue (Kellemeyer and
Forgach come to mind immediately), and against safe sex education
(a list of Catholic pro-"lifer" names comes to mind).

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.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com       C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye.  The more light you 
shine on it, the more it will contract." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 00:28:01 GMT

From article by patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey):
> 
> The time flies -- our second anniversary is coming up in less than three
> weeks.  (Dale Ann won't let me forget it, either. :-)

Much as you'd like to, I'm sure.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:48:46 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Jul30.162418.4713@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
Darcy) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Jul28.134132.2620@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
> >In article <1992Jul27.232757.8187@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> >>In article <1992Jul27.100141.27631@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
> >
> >What would you know of fairness?  
> 
> Far more than I have time to post today.

You've certainly provided reams of evidence of your "fair-mindedness".

> >In case you are wondering how many other people you may
> >have hurt or offended, one in four females is molested
> >before her fourteenth birthday.  
> 
> All the more reason for Susie to have not reposted this whole mess into
> t.a. Does she ENJOY making people suffer like this? At least in alt.flame,
> people know they read at their own risk. In t.a, there was a real 
> possibility that people may have been "hurt or offended" totally without
> warning. Is Susie and her S.O. so GODAMMNED SELFISH that their hurt is worth 
> more than that of hundreds or thousands of other readers? 
> 
> They both make me sick.

Oh, "they" make you sick, do they?

Here is spectacular evidence that I wasn't simply engaging in hyperbole
when I called you a sociopath, Darcy.  "_I_ didn't hurt anyone!  Susan's
the one who hurt people by reposting what I wrote!"  I use to laugh at the
tenuousness of your grip on reality, Darcy.  I'm certainly not laughing
now.

I won't say you need help.  I know that people like you _can't_ be helped.

I won't even say that you should be ashamed, because it's clear the concept
of shame means nothing to you.

> I didn't bring up the subject, Muriel. I didn't post a braggy article 
> amounting to essentially "Nyah! Nyah! My S.O. knows more about child 
> molestation than you do, Suzanne!".
> 
> Talk to the folks who did.

Ms. Forgach trivialized the subject.  Susan, quite properly, corrected her.
 Ms. Forgach's posting was bad enough, but it pales beside the cruelty of
your response.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: Re: If Men Could Get Pregnant. . .
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 23:27:15 GMT


  If men could get pregnant, RU486 chewing gum would be available
at the checkout counter in every K Mart!


                              -Mark

P.S.  Mints, too.

-- 
"The tree of liberty must occasionally be nourished by the blood
of tyrants and of patriots."                    Thomas Jefferson
"Hello? Information?  Would you please give me the home phone of
Pat Buchanan?...Yes.  His address as well, thank you very much."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Anti-stalking laws?
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:15:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.065831.8735@chinet.chi.il.us> 
katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:

> Can someone familiar with these anti-stalking laws tell me if it would
> be possible to prosecute Pro-fetusers under this law, if they harrass
> doctors at their homes?
>
> You hear about Pro-Choice activists who protect and escort women who
> are going to clinics, but is there a similar program to protect
> doctors? I feel *SO* sorry for them, and it's this tactic, more than
> any other, that has made me despise the Pro-fetus movement.

Is your position on abortion derived in part from the actions of a 
few radicals? If so, do you think that's a valid reason for holding
a particular position on abortion?
 

>Vickie


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion