HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: 2 wrongs making right? (was Re: Hypocrites?)
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:25:40 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.182238.5909@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul30.164357.13291@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 ) writes:
>> And YOU want to complain at me about my shameless attack on
>> pro-choicers? Hell, it's nothing compared to what the media does to
>> us. So until they stop, I think it's about time that pro-lifers
>> started picking up a stereotype list to fire back. 
>
>
>Yup, ol' Dennis still thinks it a mark of honor to sink
>to levels rather than rise above.  Way to go, Dennis.
>What character.  What integrity.  What a class act.
	And setting aside Chaneyhallwhoeverthehell's character for the
moment, I'm not sure I understand what "the media" (which, when used
erroneously in the singular, presumable indicates a monolithic conpiracy)
has/have done to pro-lifers.  Perhaps he's objecting to accurate reportage
of the antics of organizations such as Missionaries to the Preborn or O.R.
Perhaps, like most other extremists, he believes that death prayers,
vandalism, and the like should be referred to as euphemistically as
possible or not mentioned at all.
	Perhaps this belongs in alt.news.media; I'll merely point out here
(as I have, on occasion, in that other group) that political extremists in
this country routinely accuse "The Media" (singluar again) of being biased
against them.  F.A.I.R. says the media have a right-wing bias.  A.I.M. says
they have a left-wing bias.  Most reporters are moderate to liberal.  Most
publishers and owners are conservative.  If there is any systematic bias, it's
probably a centrist one against extreme viewpoints of any sort; in which
case it rather reflects the attitudes of the American people themselves.
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'



--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Catholic Druidism in Watsonville
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:28:44 GMT

From article by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
> 
> I wonder how much the woman is charging to enter her property?  Will
> Suzanne and Chaney be making a pilgrimage now?

Heck no.  For one thing, you didn't say what state "Watsonville" was in,
and for another, we have a Greek Orthodox church right hear in Tucson
with a painting that bleeds real blood.   What do I need to travel for?


> Gordon

Suzanne.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:53:47 CDT

In article <1992Jul30.162418.4713@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>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 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,

The thread started here, Kebbie.  Does it occur to you
that people can't repost the hateful things you say if you 
use the 'abort' command once in awhile?  Or think before
you post?  Not all of the folk who are flaming you read 
your comments here first.  Since we don't get alt.flame 
here, I think Susan did us a public service by letting us
know just what we were dealing with.

>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.

They both make me very proud, because they are willing to 
speak out against sick people who would abuse others.  Susan 
Garvin gives selflessly of her time and energy in the real world,
to help others who have problems, and who must run a gauntlet
of verbal abuse in order to obtain legal services.  She's a
good person, Kebbie.  I wonder what sickens you about that?
>
[...]
>
>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!".
>
This is an interesting perspective on someone who had
legitimate resentments for a thoughtless trivialization
of a very serious problem.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island (fo
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 19:44:17 GMT

<1992Jul20.164950.4358@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
><1992Jul19.004038.29900@cco.caltech.edu> tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>><1992Jul15.205545.23644@cco.caltech.edu> tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>>
>>Mr. Stevens, I grieve for a world that has brutality like yours in it.
>
>How do YOU describe justice?  Special favors for your friends or group?

Justice is that which is seen to be applied equally in similar situations.

>You are the brutal one.  You advocate the unrestrained killing of
>millions of babies.

Babies?  Who's advocating the killing of babies?  I've never seen a post
where Tim or any pro-choicer/pro-abortioner advocated killing babies.

>>And I will work to stop you until my dying breath.
>
>Feel free.  I will do the same.

Why not just mind your own business and allow women to make their own
choices?


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: COMPROMISE IN THE MAKING.
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:49:50 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Jul27.053132.18754@cc.uow.edu.au> nyikos@cc.uow.edu.au (peter nyikos) writes:
>
>This refers to the FOCA, which goes far beyond Roe v. Wade and 
>would strike down informed consent, parental consent etc. laws
>before viability.
>Peter Nyikos

Far be it for me it inject any facts into this discussion, but Mr. 
Nyikos is not quite correct here.  Before the FOCA left the House 
subcommittee, two ammendments were added to it.  One of these
permits states to enact parental consent laws.  (The other permits
individual doctors - but not institutions - to refuse to perform 
abortions if they are counter to the doctor's personal convictions.)
The FOCA does not "go far beyond Roe v. Wade" but rather was
designed to codify the intent of the original Roe v. Wade decision
into law.

Sarah McCabe
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle's remarks.
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:18:18 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Jul24.165219.820@wam.umd.edu> 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, Jay, if she's told that abortion = prompt removal from the home,
she'll carry the child to term. Guaranteed 90%+ success rate. 

Ultimately, parents can find ways to beat pro-choice extremists. Let's
not even get into sneaky and tricky parents - they're virtually
unbeatable.

===============================================================================
			I only battle the strongest. 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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.
From: paulg@pyramid.COM (Paul Griffiths)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers"  Are Really Pro-Death
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:21:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation, Mountain View, California

In article <1992Jul23.234906.936@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, 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.

	Whats really ironic with these zealots, is they've actually
increased the numbers of abortions worldwide.  How?!  The amount of
pressure they've placed on the Bush administration, to cut back on
funding for birth control and sex education  in the third world and South American
countries has caused the abortion rate to rise drastically in the
last few years... I think S.F quoted a 55 million a year figure. 
I'll agree with this figure for arguments sake, though I think it's
a little higher.  Pro-lifers can rest assured that they are responsible
for the increase in abortions, as can the Catholic Church which also
through it's lobbying pressure has forced the U.S government to stop
supplying birth control.  They did this with the hopes of teaching
the word of God, and trying to convince these starving mothers, with
their starving kids to bring more children into the world. 
	I laugh at the term pro-life. I laugh at the Catholic Church.
I laugh, because if I didn't, I'd probaly break down and cry.
		-PaulG
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: THE REAL LOWDOWN ON "CLOT," "CLUMP OF CELLS," AND "FETUS"
Keywords: chorion, chorionic sac, fetus, abortion, miscarriage
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 19:05:57 GMT

nyikos@cc.uow.edu.au (peter nyikos) writes:


>Planned parenthood "educational" materials which go into the details
>of abortion will typically show a simplified picture of the chorionic
>sac 

      [...much specualtion deleted...]

>At the end I will put the Biblical quote, "I have set before you
>death and life.  Choose life."  Can anyone supply the reference?

Good grief, Nyikos, you can't even be bothered to look up a reference
in such a readily available and well-annotated source as the _Bible_?
Why on earth should we believe the rest of your vague, unsubstantiated
claims?

>Peter Nyikos

                      -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: If Men Could Get Pregnant. . .
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 05:52:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.232715.8029@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>
>  If men could get pregnant, RU486 chewing gum would be available
>at the checkout counter in every K Mart!
>
>
>                              -Mark
>
>P.S.  Mints, too.

Just so Dr. Demento doesn't plug them 65,535 times per show on Sunday
nights. :-)

(The license plates are coming, here in Texas -- some time in the next
couple of years, the light truck plate "RU 0486" will be issued...)

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. 
(the rest of this .sig is not here, because Susan intimidated me into
erasing it.  Darcy will take that at face value, of course -- he'll believe
              anything if it gives him an excuse to whine...)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: PP executive says "personhood...begins a month after birth"
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:21:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.184628.5599@wam.umd.edu> 
judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- staying within the lines) writes:

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

>>>> Yeah, Stein seems to enjoy promoting the idea that abortion is a 
>>>> religious issue, 

>>> I have never made any such claim.  I do not promote this idea, and in fact
>>> I have stated on numerous occasions that abortion is NOT a religious issue,
>>> as far as the law is concerned.  Either support the claim or retract, 
>>> please. I'd hate to think that you misrepresent me deliberately.

>> On numerous occasions, I've seen you make reference to religious
>> abortion protesters. You must have a reason for doing that, and I
>> just assume that you want to promote the idea that abortion is a
>> religious issue (at least, for some people). 

> Yes - I'm saying it's a religious issue for the anti abortion protesters.
> Which falls right in line with my observation (and gripe) that the pro-life
> movement seems to have strong religious connections.

Now you're back promoting the idea that abortion is a religious issue.
In the second sentence, you insinuate that no pro-lifer can hold
non-religious views on abortion. You should know that's false. 


> [..]
>> That's right, you ignored Feldt's comment that "personhood begins... 
>> a month after birth". Certainly it wouldn't be too hard to say 
>> "I disagree with that statement", or "I think she's correct"? 

> I disagree with that statement.

See, that wasn't too hard to say. 



>> Pro-choice religious beliefs
>> make for bad legislation, but
>> can't bring himself to criticize
>> individual pro-choicers. 

> This statement is not correct.  I have criticized pro-choicers both
> on the net and in real life.

OK, let's update the score-card:

        Pro-choicer Feldt's remark that        Pro-choicer Feldt's remark
       "personhood begins...a month after      that her logic is based upon
        birth"                                 a religious perspective
        ---------------------------------      ---------------------------

Stein   "I disagree with that statement"       Religious beliefs make for
                                               bad legislation


We agree for once.

You're definitely doing better than these two people:


Garvin        Apologist                            Apologist


Kaufman         ????                                 ???? 


> I would really appreciate a retraction.

For what?


>Jay T Stein 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 06:47:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
>From article <p2hm#g_.ray@netcom.com>, by ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer):
>> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>>>Your intellegence has devolved to the level of a paramecium, not to
>>>mention your blatant, in-your-face lies. 
>> 
>>>		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
>> 
>> Anyone _else_ notice any inconsistencies here?
>
>If an adult teacher at the front of a classroom sneering and smirking as
>his/her child pupils roll condoms on and off cucumbers, isn't adult/child sex,
>what the hell is?   If you filmed it, you'd have a porno movie!

Well then, I suppose according to your reasoning, the following
statement is also correct.

		Being Catholic means pro-adult/child sex!

If priests having sex with children isn't adult/child sex, then nothing is.

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29404 alt.flame:11471
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: 29 Jul 92 01:41:51 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> I don't see any difference between a late-term fetus and a
-> newborn baby. They are essentially identical.

neither does darcy.

you and he have much in common.

one of them is inside a woman's body. do you know which one?

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: PP executive says "personhood...begins a month after birth"
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:07:26 GMT

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

>> ===========================================================================
>>                 Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
>> ===========================================================================

>'B.O.S.S.' means 'Better Off Shoveling Shit.'

> So Chris Lyman challenges my historical fact with a joke. 

No, you doofus.  I challenge your "Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex!"
comment with a darn good joke, a "keeper" in the words of another poster.

Did I hear someone say that you were Roman Catholic?  If you are, that's a
pretty tasteless thing to say, given the numbers of RC priests in hot water
for sexually abusing children, wouldn't you agree?

> Yeah, I might be better off shoveling shit.

Finally, an accurate self-assessment.

> The problem is, I might end up accidentally shoveling you in the process.

Then you've really got a problem.
If you can't distinguish shit from me, then...
	
	(everybody, all together now...)

	How could you tell shit from shinola???

> It's hard to tell the difference, you know.

Those career councilors at UC Sacramento must not be earning their pay if
it takes a programmer from half a continent away to help you find your
true calling.

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

-- 
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: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Originator: lip@s1.gov
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 04:48:46 GMT


In article <1992Jul24.015103.1472@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, dreiswig@nyx.cs.du.edu (Darwin E. Reiswig) writes:
:jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
:
:
:>I don't understand how these religious zealots who call themselves
:>"Pro-Life" can do so.  By outlawing abortion, they would be forcing
:>women back in the alleys, and many would die of these illegal abortions.
:>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.
:
:What about the much more simple solution to the entire problem?
:What ever happened to abstinence?  That is a fool-proof solution 
:after all.

	Getting oneself neutered would be an even better solution. No
willpower necessary. Jesus Christ himself recommended it -- read
Matthew 19:12 on how there are eunuchs who have made themselves
eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.

/Loren
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Celibate marriages? (was Re: Well, I lost that article...)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:42:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.160516.27625@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.233429.20447@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul23.003313.18002@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
:::
:::[Me and Bill Overpeck were talking.  I said that state schools should teach
:::children that their bodies are their own, and that nobody has the right to
:::use them against their wills.]
:::
:::[Bill asked, something along the lines of, so do you think the schools should
:::teach about abstinance?]
:::
:::If they're going to teach it in terms of being the only 100% guaranteed,
:::foolproof method of avoiding pregnancy, and all STD's, yes.
::
::	And will it also be taught that the safest marriage is a
::celibate one? 
::
::	I may add that the ideal of celibate marriage was actually
::taught by the medieval Church; they called it the "Josephite marriage"
::on the ground that Joseph and Mary had supposedly never had sex with
::each other. See Ute Ranke-Heinemann's _Eunuchs for the Kingdom of
::Heaven_ for more fun info of this sort.
::
::	And if marriage is conceded safe, will "living together" also
::be conceded safe?
:
:Loren, I'm not making any sort of comment about marriage, I'm talking about
:abstinence.

	And to call abstinence "safe sex" is misleading, because it is
no sex at all.

	And if one wishes to present any sexual activity at all, then
why not present the absolute safety of masturbation instead, and
recommend it for people of all ages?

	And if masturbation is not a safe sex act, then why is it not
a sex act? I will accept reasoned argument, and ONLY reasoned
arguments.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Abortion is a SIN against God!
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 17:45:09 GMT


   As long as we're quoting the bible,  I thought I might provide
some biblical perspective.  This is from the Jewish Bible, what a
Christian calls the old testament.  It has just a teeny amount of
senority over this new Christian stuff, by thousands of years.  A
quote from Exodus XXI might prove to be of interest to you devout
bible thumpers out there.

   "And if men strive together and hurt a woman so that her fruit
depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, as this
woman's husband shall lay upon him and he shall pay as the judges
determine.  But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for
life."
  
  This passage means that if a woman is caused to miscarraige, an
appropriate fine would be levied.  But if an harm followed, which
meant if THE WOMAN DIED, then it shall be "life for life."  It is
clear that the fetus was regarded as property, but the woman is a
LIFE, a human being, and only her loss would be regarded as death
to a person.
-- 
"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."