HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbates@encore.com (John W. Bates)
Subject: Re: Bible says abortion is murder?  WHERE?
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
	<1992Jul18.192704.2347@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
	<1992Jul18.224034.23029@ncsu.edu>
	<1992Jul20.001531.1356@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> <5628@catnip.berkeley.ca.us>
	<1992Jul22.185228.4446@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:11:29


In article <1992Jul22.185228.4446@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:

> 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

	Please tell us, Mr. Holtsinger, what legislation Ms. Feldt
is trying to pass based upon this statement. Whose freedoms, Mr.
Holtsinger, are her religious views treading upon? Has she lobbied
for legalization of infanticide? Has she done anything to force
others to follow her religion? No, all she has done is worked to 
keep others from infringing upon her beliefs.

	Before you start in about the rights of the unborn, though,
let me just point out that 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.  

> Doug Holtsinger

John
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:09:48 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  <1992Jul29.161719.26070@ncsu.edu>  dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Jul28.230839.14412@cs.yale.edu>
> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
> >dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>   [.. comparing the safety of prostaglandin abortions, which sometimes
>       results in live birth, against the safety of D&E, which always kills
>       the fetus ..]
>
> > I am, however, a bit concerned about statistical significance.
> > Do you have the absolute numbers?
>
> I can do better than that, I can give you a controlled study comparing
> the safety of the two procedures.

No, Doug, that's not better, since it doesn't answer the question of
how many women's deaths you consider statistically insignificant.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Anti-stalking laws?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 11:48:44 GMT
Summary:  What color is your herring?

In article <1992Jul23.151556.11145@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Jul23.065831.8735@chinet.chi.il.us> 
> katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:
> > 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?

Doug, Doug, Doug, we send you to school, give you all those
books to read, and still you can't understand the language.

The poster to whom you responded did not say she derived her
position on abortion from those who engage in the execrable tactics
described.  She said that those tactics were what engendered her
loathing for the movement.  One can, I will further explain in
case that was too difficult for you, disagree with a position on
an issue without despising those who hold the opposing viewpoint.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: IDIOTS, DAMN IDIOTS, [...]
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:07:19 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Jul20.155437.17598@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.115135.14034@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
>
>> Seventy hour work weeks aren't a sufficient reason for not
>> running off to the library to satisfy your need to be proved
>> wrong, Doug?  Terribly sorry.
>
>
>How much time do you spend posting to the net?
>
>How much of that time could you have spent at the library
>finding references to back up your unsubstantiated hogwash?

But if he were to spend his time researching, he would not have time to post.
But then he would not need to research and would then have time to post.
But...research...time....post...illogical, illogical.  Norman, coordinate.

Sarah McCabe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: ChaneyHall 'spectates' at his own backpedal...
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:35:03 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

[--deletions--]

>> Did I hear someone say that you were Roman Catholic?  If you are, ["Pro-
>> Choice means pro-adult/child sex!"] is a pretty tasteless thing to say,
>> given the numbers of RC priests in hot water for sexually abusing children,
>> wouldn't you agree?

> Did I hear about the number of pro-choicers in hot shit for anything
> from rape to being drunk all the time (Ted Kennedy, anyone)?

Is that the best you can do?  Tell me, how many of those women were children,
whom the Kennedys allegedly took advantage of?  And since you directed the
conversation that way, how about Jimmy Swaggart?  There's a wholesome
pro-lifer for you.

[--shoveling shit stuff _mercifully_ deleted--]

>> ps - That's a nice tap dance you're doing regarding Susan B. Anthony.  How's
>> the choreography coming for the "Margaret Sanger Backpedal?"

> Susan Garvin's leading the dance. I'm just a spectator.

Translation: "Who, me?  I didn't do anything..."

I just read in the paper that it was 75 years ago that Margaret Sanger was
arrested for 'making a public nuisance.'  Her crime?  Operating a birth
control clinic.

So how are you coming on transcribing that PP ad for us?

-- 
Chris Lyman -  a personal        /   "I belong to no organized
opinion for every occasion       /   political party.  I am a
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov    /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
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: From: decay@
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 01:35:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.034533.4952@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Jul16.213228.26985@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- losing patience with DOD) writes:
>>What: <1992Jul15.191651.20943@ncsu.edu>
>>Who:  dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
>>
>>>>  = Jay T Stein
>>>>> = Doug Holtsinger
>>
>>>>> I'm not trying to force pro-choicers to defend infanticide, I'm asking
>>>>> the "liberal" pro-choicers to provide consistent reasons for their
>>>>> arguments. If their arguments do not call for distinguishing between
>>>>> newborn infants and late-term fetuses, then they must condone infanticide 
>>>>> to be consistent. 
>>>
>>>> And to you, the same question I asked Kevin Darcy: Give me the name of *ONE*
>>>> Pro-C'er on t.a who does NOT distinguish between newborn infants and late-
>>>> term fetuses.  If you can't, your argument is worthless.
>>>
>>>Try reading my statements more carefully. I'm asking the "liberal"  
>>>pro-choicers to provide consistent reasoning for their arguments,
>>>I'm not accusing them of defending infanticide. 
>>
>>Don't be an idiot.  You explicitly said, IF THEIR ARGUMENTS DON'T CALL FOR
>>DISTINGUISHING...  It's quite valid to ask you to find the name of one
>>person on t.a for whom this statement would be relevant - namely, one
>>whose arguments don't distinguish between later term fetuses and newborn
>>infants.  I claim that there is *no* such person on t.a, so your
>>argument is worthless.
>
>You must be blind, Jay, if you can't see lots of folks here who argue for an
>abortion "right", even after the point of viability. And after viability, 
>what's the essential difference between terminating a human life _in utero_ or 
>after birth? 

This must be the GROUP Kevin Darcy answering.

C'mon, Kibbles, if it's so obvious, you must be able to provide the name of
even one person who has stated that a woman should be allowed to obtain an
abortion that kills the fetus five minutes before she goes into labor...

Or is this just another attempt to continue your net.vendettas???
--
=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???=
="I want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 21:08:39 GMT


vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:

>  OB-GYN PHYSICIANS AND RESIDENTS
>   $180,000 Guarantee
>    $180,000 annual guarantee for experienced ob-gyn physicians joining
>    brand new group just moving into Dallas.  Will open in July.  Full and
>    part time openings for residents in surgery, ob-gyn, and general
>    medicine.  Growth potential unlimited.

Isn't it shocking how those evil doctors are profiteering by encouraging
women to have babies?  What a racket!  

Are you saying we should outlaw childbirth, or what?

>GSC

                      -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: seth@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Seth Buffington)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: University of North Texas, Denton
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:53:35 GMT

>
>>In article <adams.712206042@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>>>take, if He so choses.  But you miss my point, too.  I am pro-choice.  I
>>>object to abortion on religious grounds, yet refuse to impose my religion
>>>on anyone else.  

I am pro-choice too! But shall we define that? I choose life and
choose to protect life. Obviously this opposes those who choose
death in any form you wish to state.
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Bible says abortion is murder?  WHERE?
Date: 25 Jul 92 06:40:48 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <NUGE.92Jul24114732@newport.med.ge.com> nuge@newport.med.ge.com (James A. Nugent) writes:
>In article <5628@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us
>(Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

>  "If, however, [a man strikes his male or female slave witha rod and]
>  the slave survives for a day or two [before dying] he is not to be
>  punished, since the slave is his own property."

>  I think (hope) our standards of morality and "property" have evolved
>beyond the Code of the Covenant in Exodus. What do you think?

Well, the New Testament doesn't.  The New Testament, according to
fundamentalists, is the only thing that can amend or change Old Testament
Law.  And the New Testament, in the form of a letter from Paul, thinks
slavery is A-OK and that slaves should obey their masters.

>> My friend kept on saying, "The Church says... the Church says..."
>> but that shouldn't play for fundamentalists.  Where's the biblical
>> precedent?  

>   Got me. I don't consider myself a fundamentalist.

Well, that was my intended audience.  Oh well, thanks for playing.

--Teddi
--------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)--------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Hypocrites?
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:21:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.143546.26291@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.191305.21907@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>In article <adams.712521565@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>
>>> What the "Pro-Life" people want is an end to abortion.  Period.  Therefore,
>>> the proper appelation would well be "anti-abortion." 
>>
>>Not necessarily. Many of the pro-life people also oppose euthanasia
>>and the use of anencephalic infants as organ donor sources. 
>>Therefore, the "proper appelation" is pro-life, not anti-abortion.
>	In fact, unless they are opposed to *all* forms of taking human life,
>including capital punishment and warfare (as the Catholic Church is, at least
>officially), they're still not honestly "pro-life".  Your definition is far
>too narrow to be meaningful, since it allows one to still favor State-
>enforced killing of human beings while claiming to be "pro-life".
>	Not that it matters; people will use whatever labels they prefer.

But answer us this: 

Can we take a group which works to ban infanticide, abortion,
and euthenasia, and call them "anti-abortion?" 

How accurate or sensible does it sound to have a news story like this:
"The killing of this anencephalic infant for organs, was stopped by
pressure from anti-abortion groups." 

Yeah, right.  

>>Doug Holtsinger
>Chuck
>No .sig, no frills, no foolin'
> 


===============================================================================
		  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. 
 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29429 alt.birthright:141 alt.abortion.inequity:2719
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:59:03 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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]

>>>11) Would rather have human fetal testing?  
>>This is a tougher question, to which I don't have an answer.

>Steve Adams, I don't understand why fetal testing is different that corpse
>testing. If the fetus is dead, what is the problem? Do you find testing on
>dead adults reprehensable? There is much to be gained by studying and using
>the tissue of a dead fetus that would otherwise rot.

My problem with deciding how I feel on this is the possible ramifications.
Assume for a moment that fetal tissue is found to cure some horrendous
disease.  Do you then support conception soley for provision of fetal
tissue?  This creates lots of issues that I don't have any answers for...

 -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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Scriptural Food for Thought
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:05:02 GMT

kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

> The following should not be construed as support or opposition to
> either pro-life or pro-choice positions. The author merely wishes
> to provoke debate about the use of scriptural authority in arguments
> in favor of or against abortion:

> Numbers 5:12-31.

> This passage describes the ritual which suspected adulteresses must
> undergo as commanded by God. If she is guilty of adultery, then the
> priest must give the woman an infusion which is supposed to induce
> an abortion.

> We may laugh at the naivete of this ritual, but can we not conclude
> that the intent of abortion is there, and it is ascribed to God?

I read two translations of this passage over lunch hour; the ritual is
clearly intended to cause a miscarriage if the woman has conceived.  I
will type in the relevant verses tomorrow if no one has already done so.
Wow.  So much for my claim that there is nothing in the Bible about
abortion!

-- 
Chris Lyman -  a personal        /   "I belong to no organized
opinion for every occasion       /   political party.  I am a
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov    /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: BIRDS OF A FEATHER
Organization: Patrick, for himself, as usual.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 06:34:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.161546.4622@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.113040.25342@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>In article <Bs3oIH.9rp@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
>>
>>>   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.
>>
>>One question: as much as you may disagree with Susan Garvin,
>>has she ever said anything that would give you the impression
>>that she would condone child molestation?  That she would share
>>her life with an individual who made a practice of that sort of
>>thing?  How would you feel if Kevin had implied that your sister,
>>or aunt, or mother, was consorting with a child molester?
>>
>>Do you honestly believe that Kevin thought for _one minute_ that
>>Susan would hang out with someone like that?  
>
>As stated elsewhere, I would not expect even Susie Garvin to share her life
>with a PRACTICING child-molester. But I do believe her gullible enough to
>fall for a supposedly "cured" one...

Keep backpedaling as you try to justify your pure maliciousness.  It's
amusing.  (I hope you never actually come face-to-face with either Susan or
Don -- after all, someone would have to clean up your rancid remains...)

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

                Hit Darcy and win a free trip to Dewalt, Texas!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Oh-no, not *that* one again!
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 20:10:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
>What I was, and am, objecting to, is the practice of cloaking one's eyes
>with the garb of "education", insisting that people use Latin words like
>"fetus" instead of the equivalent English word "baby", in order to
>dehumanize another human being for the purpose of committing some cruel
>act against them, in this case, the bloody destruction of that human being.

I may well be mistaken, but don't you claim membership in the Catholic
Church?  The same one that is still widely using latin?  If so (and excuse
me if I'm mistaken), what could possibly be your objection to the use of
the English word fetus?

And yes, it _is_ English.  Enough native speakers of the language recognize
it and understand its meaning for it to qualify as an English word.  That
it has a Latin origin is irrelevent, as many English words have their origins
in other languages.

>You can try to sanitize it all you want, with "re-education", mental re-
>programming, redefinitions, and even insisting that English speaking Americans
>speak Latin.   But you cannot make the underlying truth of the horror of what
>you are advocating, the bloody dismemberment of millions of unborn children,
>go away.   No amount of whitewash will cover the bloodstains.

I'll assume (this time) that you are merely ignorant and not deliberately
lying in this paragraph.  In the past you've claimed that the Pill may
not be used as it abort/prevents implantation of fertilized eggs.  In such
cases not only does no dismemberment occur, but there is no blood, no members
or limbs, and no babies.  Unless, of course, you consider an embryo that
is this => . <= big to be a baby?

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle's remarks.
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 06:01:53 GMT

judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- digital schmutz) writes:

>What: <92205.201247JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu>
>Who:  Jennifer Brown <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu>

>>Quayle should be banned!  Last night, he said that if his daughter were
>>an adult, he would go along with whatever her decision was.  However, today
>>he said that "last night, it was suggested that she was an adult, as a
>>child, she would definitely have the child".

>Yes, and his wife said simply, "She *would* have the child."  No hint of
>concern for their daughter's health, no trace of compassion for whatever
>situation she might be in... a fine example of why parental consent
>laws are dangerous.

Well, you forgot to include the rest, Jay.  The interviewer went
on to ask Marilyn "You would make that decision _for_ her?".  Marilyn
replied "We would make that decision _with_ her."

I shudder to think what might be involved in convincing her daughter
to agree with the predetermined position.

>     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-

                 -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Dear Operation Rescue
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 17:17:11 GMT

<1992Jul23.162222.2854@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) said:
>===============================================================================
>		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
>===============================================================================

Care to support this contention?


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.
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations on George Bush's abortion position
Date: 31 Jul 92 01:02:04 GMT
Organization: LLNL


	George Bush's position, that unwanted pregnancy is a
legitimate punishment for the sins of those who practice sex for the
fun of it is _exactly_ like the position of that clergyman I mentioned
who had denounced lightning rods because it would help escape God's
punishment of their sins.

	There were similar objections for other medical procedures,
like inoculation and vaccination for smallpox, on the ground that
smallpox was sent as a punishment for its sufferers' sins. There were
those who rejected anesthesia for women giving birth on the ground
that Eve was sentenced to bear her children in pain as punishment.

	And even in the 1920's, there was a leading theologian who
claimed that _all_ pain was a punishment for sin.
Organization: Doctoral student, Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA