HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- only on the Discovery Channel)
Subject: Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 04:58:05 GMT

What: <1992Jul23.234609.13510@noao.edu>
Who:  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)

[Susan Garvin: notes that Dan Quayle said he would support his daughter if
               she chose to have an abortion]

>Could it be that Quayle, as a father, merely said he would never turn
>his back on his own daughter?   Hmmmm?   Hell, I could say the same thing.

In other words, you would support your daughter's decision to have an
abortion, but you would not allow anyone *else's* daughter to have the
option.

I find this sadly lacking in moral consistency, not to mention intellectual
integrity.
--
     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 23:41:26 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  <BrwyvJ.BuM@news.cso.uiuc.edu>  slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>
> >In  <BrwD8t.2vv@news.cso.uiuc.edu>  slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellme
>
> >> 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.
>
> Get a life, Larry.

I've already got one, thanks.

> Induced abortion is the subject of this group, not spontaneous abortion.

When did they rename it to "talk.abortion.induced"?

> Your playing with words in an attempt to avoid looking stupid.

Are you claiming that there are *not* people (both on this group and in
the Real World) who want to ban abortifacients as well as induced
abortions?

> It's too late for that, so just give up.

Considering the source, I can only smile at this.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Oh-no, not *that* one again!
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:34:19 GMT

From article <1992Jul23.185720.27575@coopsol.com>, by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
> <1992Jul9.000055.25761@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>>
>>                   The biological development of the unborn child is well
>>known, and might I add, well ignored.
> 
> I couldn't find a reference to 'unborn child' development.  I found plenty
> of references to "fetal development.
>... 
> 
>>It's as plain as the nose on your face, but your "educated" glasses
>>are so thick, you've lost sight of the obvious.   
> 
> Yeah, what we need is more illiteracy and ignorance.  Imagine someone on
> this board actually putting down education?  Pretty weird isn't it.


Yeah, especially since that wasn't what I was doing, by a long shot.

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.

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.

 
> Gordon

Suzanne Forgach
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?
Date: 23 Jul 92 11:54:55 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

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
-> #This is the same Margaret Sanger who said, in one breath,
-> #that abortion was wrong, and then died of one?
-> #
-> #And don't say that isn't true; Planned Parenthood themselves,
-> #in their big Sanger's Birthday celebration ads, talked about
-> #her death by an illegal abortion.
-> #
-> #Don't even TRY to escape from this one, Garvin.
-> 
-> Margaret Sanger was born in 1883 and died in 1966.  
-> Feel free to try to squirm out of this one, Chahallney.

it seems to me that chaney/hall has a couple of options here.

among them:

he could reach for is propeller-cap accessory calculator and
compute in his very special way such that ms. sanger died at age
23, rather than age 79/80. or he can post that the ms. sanger he
was referring to was not the ms. sanger of note, but a barmaid in
milwaukee.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Catholic Druidism in Watsonville
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 07:31:43 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

In article <1992Jul26.162756.28068@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.002844.14226@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>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?
>
>Gee, I wonder what blood type it is?  RH Positive or Negative?

Personally I wonder if it's HIV+ or HIV-.  Kinda amazes me too, that
people would take their children to see blood oozing down a wall but not
talk straight to them about sex.  I have little doubt about the latter in
most religious households.


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 the sweetest woman in the world, and proud of it.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Short Sweet and To the Point
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 11:28:24 GMT

tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
] 
] since I'm speaking up, I'd do it just once, and say what I've
] got to say:  I believe the choice is whether to conceive a
] child or not, *not* what to do with the child ("fetus") after
] it is conceived.  You've made your choice before you're 
] pregnant.  If you can't live with that, don't have sex. period.
] end of discussion :-)
] -- 
] Todd Greenfield
] tgreen@iastate.edu 


You get into your car for a lovely summers drive.
You get into an Accident....

Should I use your Logic, and say you should
have thought about that before you got into the car?

Or should I excuse you from Your Most Compelling logic
and start first aid right away....


ciao
drieux


ps: "don't mess with the CorpsMan, you may never know
when you will need medical attention..."

		Rules to live by
-- 
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.
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: INFO: JustLife
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:48:58 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Ron Graham) writes:

>JustLife is a non-denominational, bi-partisan organization working to
>promote justice and life ethics.  
[...]
>JustLife is unique among the 50 organizations in the Seamless Garment
>Network, as it works to show that being pro-justice, pro-life and pro-
>peace makes political sense for candidates for elected office.  

Make up your mind: is it "bi-partisan" and "promoting justice and life
ethics", or is it another dumbass pro-life front?

And BTW, as everyone is seeing, being pro-"life" is political suicide this
year.  Even fucking QUAYLE mumbled ambivalence concerning abortion on Larry
King last night (7-22-92).  At least, he said he'd "support his daughter if
she decided to have an abortion".

Tell me, Ron or any other forced-birther: do you agree with Quayle?

>JustLife evaluates voting records and endorses candidates who agree with these
>policies on all three issues.  

Ah, all clear now.  Just a more insidious version of a Religious Coercion
Squad organization.  

You should've just said so, Ron.

[further propoganda deleted due to boredom...]

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29301 talk.religion.misc:12822
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Why Does DearOldDoug hate traditional christian values?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 01:20:31 GMT

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

] 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


And we go around the same point again....

Given that you have at times been concerned about
those who are CatholicsBigots....

Why Not share with us why you oppose traditional christian
values, and especially when they are presented by Gloria Feldt????


ciao
drieux



-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nuge@newport.med.ge.com (James A. Nugent)
Subject: Re: Bible says abortion is murder?  WHERE?
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI
	<1992Jul18.192704.2347@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
	<1992Jul18.224034.23029@ncsu.edu>
	<1992Jul20.001531.1356@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> <5628@catnip.berkeley.ca.us>
Distribution: na
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:47:32 GMT

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

> Now, as far as I know, the only biblical reference to it is Exodus 21:22
> (I think it's that-- I just moved and my bible is still packed) where the
> penalty for causing a woman to miscarry is monetary compensation.  Doesn't
> sound like murder to me.

  It appears that they considered the unborn as "property." Of course
to get to verse 22 you had to notice this (verse 21):

  "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?

> My friend kept on saying, "The Church says... the Church says..."

  Yup. Early Church teaching, the Didache Apostolicae (Teachings of
the Apostles, ~ 100 AD) says:

  "You shall not kill the fetus by abortion, or destroy the infant
  already born."

> but that shouldn't play for fundamentalists.  Where's the biblical
> precedent?  

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


> Oft times John leaping in Elizabeth's womb is cited, 

	"When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leapt within
	 her womb." Luke 1:41

   As any t.a. reader knows, 'baby' has to be a sloppy tranaslation!
It should be 'unborn-it-thingy.' :-)


> but even the Church claimed personhood only at quickening for
> centuries.

  They still said abortion was wrong. See above.

  
> And "Before I formed thee in the womb I knew thee" is an argument
> for personhood *before* conception, which most pro-lifers would
> disavow (I hope!)

  This doesn't seem to refer to human or bodily form (which would have
to be _after_ "I formed thee"), but to a another entitiy, i.e. a
spirit, or even an _idea_ in God's mind.

--
Jim Nugent

nuge@med.ge.com

nugentj@med.ge.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:03:27 GMT

In article <adams.712206449@spssig>
adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
 
>
>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.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And if one, why not others?  Wherever He came from, I would venture to
guess, others could have come also.
 
>  -Steve
>> -gordon
 
A poor Wayfaring Stranger [some say, a Strange One] in a strange land,
 
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Disclaimer: Not my employer's opinion; probably                     |
 |             not your's either!                                      |
 |                                    Try: Roger_Holfeltz@stortek.com  |
 |                                     or: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM@stortek.com|
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29300 talk.religion.misc:12820
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:44:35 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>In article <adams.712206042@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>>In my humble opinion, a woman 'creates' nothing.  God creates.  Sure, there
>>is a certain biological/physiological happenstance.  But since I believe
>>that the soul enters the body at conception, that life is only for God to
>>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.  
>>
>Steve, I applaud your justification for remaining pro-choice
>despite your moral stance on abortion.  But tell me, when do
>identical twins get 'ensouled'?  Do they share a soul, or is one
>of them soulless?  If a second soul is introduced at the moment
>of division, which one gets the original soul?  This could be
>the stuff of which dreadful arguments are made between twin
>siblings.

Please realize that I make no claim to understand exactly how it works!
But, in my humble opinion, God provides the requisite soul material when
and where needed....

 -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: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 12:09:18 GMT


   Not that this belong in this group, but with regard to the gun
issue, groups do not have rights.  People do.  The statement that
refers to a well-regulated militia was inended to define how the
citizenry should protect themselves from GOVERNMENT!  Refering to
a free society meant a society that was unfettered by government.
The gun freaks used to have a bumper sticker that stated if there
was gun control, only the criminals would have guns.  If we stu
the situation, and see what one entity has historically killed in
numbers that dwarf what criminals have done, we will see that a
government is much more dangerous than a street thug.  What those
that wrote the second amendment SHOULD have written was "If there
is gun control, only the GOVERNMENT wolud have guns. S, isn't
it?
-- 
"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."
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:12:47 EDT
From: Jennifer Brown <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Dan Quayle's remarks.

Anyone who feels they have something really important to say, please
forward me a copy of what you post:

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".
Pig-headed, God-d*mned, SOB...
-Jennifer
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The MOB?! (formerly: Supreme Court)
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:13:55 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul24.180909.15746@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu 
(Gregory "non sequiturs are us" Clausen) writes:
#In article <1992Jul23.190147.6402@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- sounds like Nirvana) writes:
##Abortion is extremely profitable today.  It is a multi-billion dollar
###industry which the mob has infiltrated in a few areas of the nation.
#
##I demand support for this claim, lest you be considered just another
##person who will say anything, no matter how wrong or hateful, to further
##your cause.
#
#I do hate the mafia.  Write to the FBI.

In other words, you have no support for your claim.  Typical.

Susan
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, 23 Jul 1992 04:04:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.021544.249982@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

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

>>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

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

>>>> Please provide a rational justification for killing a late-term 
>>>> fetus that would not also justify killing a newborn infant.

>>> It is never necessary to kill a newborn infant in order to
>>> remove it from its mother.  It is sometimes necessary to
>>> kill a late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant
>>> woman.

>> It is never necessary to kill a late term fetus during a purely
>> elective abortion in order to remove it from its mother. Try again.

> Why should I?  I answered your question.  

OK, then define "necessary". When is it "necessary" to kill a 
late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant woman? Would it
be "necessary" if the woman does not want to endure labor?   

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE THIRD TRIMESTER MYTH.
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:14:37 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Jul21.032210.4698@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>If third-tri abortions are so insignificant, why do the Extremists fight
>so hard to protect them, I wonder, oftentimes staking EVERYTHING for the sake
>of that tiny subset of all abortions? Why take such irresponsible risks? If 
>given the choice between a precarious 3-trimester right, and a rock-solid 2-
>trimester right, which is more pragmatic, do you think?

Its real simple. Anything that we don't give away for free is something
that you will have to expend that much more effort to take away, and
so slow down your agenda just that much more.

>								- Kevin

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter       ----         GS1260 Suzuki drag bike  *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: jfrankli@nyx.cs.du.edu (Jim Franklin])
Subject: Re: franklin defends darcy
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 19:00:36 GMT

In article <Bs5Jtt.Mzs@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Elvis) writes:
>
>   You see, I fully believe that strong, loving heterosexual relationships
>will (in most cases!) breed in turn loving, heterosexual relationships.
>However, I subscribe to the theory that homosexual relationships and
>practices stem from a childhood that was less than "normal". You define
>normal if you like. There is a higher incedence of homosexuality in chilren
>who have been through a divorce. There is also a higher incedence of 
>homosexuality in those who lost a father (OR mother) when young...
>   Sure, in my first article I flunked by generalizing, but I still
>think the point holds.
>
>steve

Yeah, the point holds... your hat in place. :)

But seriously, if, as somebody suggested, homophobia means "fear of
the same"  then you, Stevie, are most certainly not homophobic.

Your phobia seems to be of anyone who is "different". Keep up the
good work. Hey, were all in this together, right ?

jim