HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Hopeful Sign
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:29:12 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <Bxu3Lz.924.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <+wt1!x-@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>#CNN also reports that OR has announced a change of tactics.  Instead
>#of trying to shut down individual clinics, they will now target Bill
>#Clinton directly.

>I'm glad that
>they've chosen to harass one man rather than hundreds of women,
>but I don't know what they hope to accomplish.  I also
>wonder if the troups will fall in line behind the leaders, or
>if they'll rebel and continue to block clinics.

They probably will continue to block clinics.  And I'm not at all sure
that OR targeting one person is a good thing.  I think there is a sig-
nificant chance that some time in the next four years, an OR person
will target him through the scope of a rifle.  Part of that respect
for life philosophy, doncha know.... 

Joe


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 18 Nov 1992 20:41:44 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

otis@opal.idbsu.edu (Otis Kenny) writes:

>Details of the "plan" deleted

>#   How does your proposal protect the interests of an unwanted child
>#   (assuming it isn't aborted)?  How does it protect the interests of
>#   a child who is wanted by a parent who is financially unable tp 
>#   provide for said child?  

>It doesn't.  Why should a parent who is financially unable to provide
>for said child be permitted to force someone else to provide for said
>child. The interests of the child do not come into the equation until
>the child can be provided for by someone other than the woman who is
>carrying (or carried) it.  If the woman cannot afford the child, why
>should she have it?

It may be in the best interest of the child to stay with a parent who 
wants and loves it, but is unable to financially provide, then to remove
the child from its parent and place it in institutionalized care.
(Note:  I am *not* referring to the case where the child has a second
parent who also wants custody.)  In such a case the money must come
from *somewhere* -- either the non-custodial parent or the taxpayers.

Our society makes the assumption that it is usually better for the
child to remain with at least one of its parents, than to be 
instutionalized or be put up for adoption.

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bgarfink@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (beth diane garfinkel)
Subject: Re: ATUI: The Liberal Position, and Why it is Morally Incorrect
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:18:06 GMT

In <BxqA3H.J4y@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

>As an example of that, suppose that there is only a single living pig left in
>all the world.  We have a responsibility not to wipe out that species and so
>we make it illegal to kill pigs (back when there were a few more).  Suppose
>this pig lives on a special island that no one is allowed to travel to.
>Suppose, now, that a person is lost overboard in a storm and ends up on this
>island.  Suppose all the vegitation is either posionous or non-nutritional and
>that all other animals are either impossible to catch or are not good to eat.
>Are you going to tell us that this person does not have the right to kill that
>last pig for food?  The *person* has a right to live.  The pig does not.  The
>person *should not* kill the pig, unless there is a *good reason* (like he needs
>it for food and that's all there is, or the pig was attacking him and would
>have killed or seriously hurt him).

Very minor nitpick, but if there's only one living pig left in the
world, essentially, we already HAVE killed off the entire species; one
needs two, one of each sex, so that they can reproduce, in order for
them to remain a viable species. . .
								Beth
-- 
"This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays."
	-Arthur Dent, on being told that the Earth is about to blow up.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (LYNN ALFORD)
Subject: Re: restrictions
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Organization: Florida State University
Distribution:  world
Date: 20 NOV 92 16:39:34    

In article <1992Nov17.134317.21957@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes...
>In article <1992Nov17.055146.5262@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) 
>writes:
> 
>}Of course not.  But to argue that the life of a born -10 minutes
>}fetus is less important than the life of a cat is equally absurd.  
> 
>Depends on the cat.  If it eats bats, I'd tend to agree with you, but
>if it eats frogs...

This depends a lot on species, but a cat that eats bats just gets a good 
meal.  A cat who eats frogs might die from the experience.  Some frogs have 
various toxins in their skins.  I have never heard of any bats that do.
Unfortunately for both the cat and the frog, the frogs are more likely to 
be eaten by a cat, since they are more likely to be within range of the 
cat's pounce.  Chalk one up for bat flight.

Lynn
  _____      The Darwin fish
\/    o\
/\_____/
  bb bb
I had an opinion just a moment ago.  Now where did I put it?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:36:23 GMT

In <1992Nov15.024945.4805@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:

>>>>> Gordon Storga
>> Nyikos

>>>>>Again, since you state "by Storga's atheistic standards..." I assume that
>>>>>you believe I have some special Atheistic standards that deviate from the
>>>>>norm significantly.  Please explain what they are, or just confirm that
>>>>>you did not mean that I had any special standards.

>>As I said: nothing special, nothing to indicate that they aren't your
>>average garden-variety atheistic standards.

>This begs the question: what the hell are "atheistic standards" and how do
>they differ from religious standards?

The case in question had to do with Yehoshua Messiah, better known as 
Jesus Christ.  In evaluating certain things he did, atheistic standards
would evaluate him in purely human terms, while some religious standards
would evaluate him according to the claim that "Before Abraham ever came
to be, I am."

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: pragmatism?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:04:44 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
->While it may be true that women have a right to their own
->bodies, one cannot discount the social effect and attitudes fostered by
->an opinion that a fetus is worthless.  For that reason I do not
->generally argue for that view.

->In my _opinion_ one _must_ recognize that both the woman and the 
->fetus have great value.  But the priciple of liberty may have more 
->value than a fetus.  Many people have died to preserve our freedoms;
->I am rather stringly disinclined to forgo those freedoms without 
->compelling reasons.

what might those compelling reasons be, ray?

do you want to imprison women who have banned
abortions?

would you deny abortion in the case of rape, ray?


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 18:47:28 GMT

<1992Nov19.152859.4360@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) said:
>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>>> The NT God judges us for our beliefs only, and
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Not at all.  This is only Protestant dogma.   For a fuller expression
>> of Christianity, see Catholicism.
>
...
>Who are you to judge what a fuller expression of Christianity might be?
>As far as I'm concerned, Gordon Storga (professional atheist) or Steve
>Novak (Forgach napalmer deluxe) dropping some change in a Salvation Army
>bucket while Christmas shopping is a fuller expression of Christianity
>than anything you've written here.

I usually drop change into those little "Last Wish" boxes at the counters,
or give money to the vets.  The last few years we've averaged donating
about $2500 worth of money and goods to charities and organizations.  I
don't consider charity to be "Christian" or religious at all.  It's just
something people choose to do.  Of course, some people beg for unwanted
children, but don't do anything to actually adopt any of them.  I wouldn't
consider that particularly "Christian".


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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:06:45 GMT

From article by locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Misquamicus):
> In article jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
>>
>>The New Testament fulfilled the Old Testament.  Many of the prophets
>>(esp. Isaiah) told of the promised Messiah, who was fulfilled
>>in every detail in Jesus.  (I only have a NT with me, otherwise I would
>>quote some verses.)  I am genuinely interested to hear your answer to this,
>>because I believe that you are still expecting the Messiah to come.  I am
>>also interested to understand why.  Feel free to email me at
>>jsm@aeg.dsto.gov.au if you don't wish to discuss this over alt.atheism.
>... 
> 
> Then we get to the question of his alleged direct decent from king David.
> Ever notice in Matthew it traces Jesus ancestry through JOSEPH to David?


And in the Gospel of Luke, his ancestry his traced through MARY to David.
So there you have it.  A direct bloodline.



> Ever notice the contradictions in the geneologies given in the other gospels?

Heh?  Just because one's paternal and one's maternal does not mean they
contradict.


SF
From: clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: To the discussionaries!
Date: 18 Nov 92 01:30:41 -0600
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <adams.721594875@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
> 
>>---Clinton is not the enemy. --- Just because he is the president that supports
>>many anti- christian ideals (gay rights, abortion on demand, etc.), he is only
>>a tool that God uses to wake up his children and to shake the fence that people
>>are trying to balance on.  We need to love our brothers and sisters (even
>>clinton) and hate the sin.  This also is true for hating abortion but loving
>>those who had them.  We need to tell the truth but not judge, that is up to
>>God.
>>
>>---The only thing different not from before the election is that now we have a
>>new challange to face.  Besides, as we see from those resigning before clinton
>>comes in.  Many experienced people see him for what he was now --talk just
>>talk.  I don't want to side track, but seeing that he wanted to bomb and begin
>>a ground war with Serbia just a few months ago.  What will he do know?
>>
>>I think that is good for now.  Peter -- stay in there and all you others for
>>the unborn.  Maybe people will wake up soon.
> 
> Ken...
> 
>    If you can convince people to follow your moral standards willingly,
> then there is no problem.  But to write Christian moral standards into law
> is wrong.  The New Testament tells us that no man is saved by the law, nor
> can we be.  Passing laws making certain sins illegal does nothing to
> further God's cause, nor does it prevent the sin.

That scripture taken out of context was refering to the LAW of God not man.

> 
>    Work instead to educate people as to *why* they should willingly follow
> the strict moral code you propose.

I propose nothing.  I only act as God tells me.
...Ken!
> 
>  -Steve
> --
>   The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
>                          -------------------
>    adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
>    Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: Survivors of Abortion
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:13:47 GMT

A response to DOD's article in the other group.
I thought you folks might enjoy Jim's response
(again, posted with the author's permission).

Diana

jim@apsicc.aps.edu (frost...) writes:

] dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (big tree) writes...
] > 
] >     Something happens in a very small  number  of  abortions,  per-
] >   formed  relatively  late  in pregnancy, that no one wants to talk
] >   about. It horrifies  many  of  the  medical  personnel  who  have
] >   encountered it.
] > 
] Mr. Doug Holtsinger,
]   Could you please keep your political opinions to the appropriate newsgroup. Many
] people here may sympathise or even agree with you but your posting in this group
] is more likely to be turning people off to your views than you are trying to con-
] vert.
] 					 Trying to be as polite as possible,
] 							Jim


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.misc
From: dhd@exnet.co.uk (Damon)
Subject: Re: Purpose of lat/longs
Organization: ExNet Systems Ltd Public Access News, London, UK
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 16:14:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.062558.14903@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>1. so there is a good reason to get sites into the UCCP map 
>project, and keep it up to date? 
>
>2. I had thought the purpose of the lat/long in the map
>entries was for 'targetting purposes' so that the people
>at the Bigger Sites would Know where to send the ICBM
>when those pipsqueek uucp sites started acting up....

Or so they or the FBI would know where to go to confiscate the
equipment.  That's why my entry actually points to the house 3 down
from me.  B^>

Damon
-- 
Damon Hart-Davis                          Internet: dhd@exnet.co.uk, d@hd.org

Public-access UNIX (Suns), news and mail for UK#5 per month.  FIRST MONTH FREE.
[1.35] Cheap Sun eqpt.  UUCP news/mail feeds.  Tel/Fax: +44 81 755 0077.
Newsgroups: ncsu.general,talk.abortion
From: blchapma@eos.ncsu.edu (BEKKI LYN)
Subject: Re: The FUTURE is HERE!!!!!!!!!
Originator: blchapma@c00474-224wi.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: blchapma@eos.ncsu.edu (BEKKI LYN)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:12:01 GMT


In article <1992Nov17.202633.24525@ncsu.edu>, jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS) writes:
|> In article <adams.721675706@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
|> |> I don't see how this is going to hurt you personally...don't you think that
|> |> gays deserve equal protection under the law?  And how is keeping abortion
|> |> legal 'pandering' to the abortion-rights activists.  Most Americans believe
|> |> that at least some abortions should be legal.  And the Supreme Court has
|> |> said they should be legal, even though there were lots of judges appointed
|> |> by Reagan and Bush.
|> 
|> Equal yes, but not special priveledges for being different, including marriage.
|> It is pandering, just as outlawing it would be called pandering to the churches.
|> Abortion I *gasp* support in the case of rape or incest, or when the mothers 
|> life is in danger, but there must be some (dunno how) way to prove that a 
|> rape has happened, that remember is (yes I already said this) what the woman
|> now know as Jane Roe said happened to her, and later admitted was a lie.

Women who lie about rape make up about 1% or less of those reporting.
Yes, lying about something like rape is sickening; however, the 99% of
real rape survivors must have their rights protected.

I would imagine that if abortion is deemed illegal except through rape
or incest, the cases of women lying about rape will go drastically up, 
which would make it even more difficult for society to believe the real
rape survivors.

Since most rapists seem to go unpunished, making abortion illegal except
for rape or incest, would pretty much keep abortions from most of the
rape survivors.

Remember too, that a woman is *always* risking her life during a pregnancy.
Her life is always in danger.  A woman can go through a whole pregnancy
without complications, yet die during delivery.  Forcing a human being to
go through such a risk is repulsive to me, and I will do everything in my
power to keep women from being forced into such a gamble with death.
-- 

Bekki Lyn

************************************************************
"Today is within my reach, and tomorrow is so illusive
 But I'm still chasing time through increasing disillusion
 Forever living for the future of an illusion."

 -- FATES WARNING-- "Perfect Symmetry"
************************************************************
Newsgroups: ncsu.general,talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: The FUTURE is HERE!!!!!!!!!
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 21:20:22 GMT

<1992Nov20.152638.1008@ncsu.edu> jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS):
><1992Nov19.214208.3324@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
[Harris speaks against abortion on this basis:]
>|> >Like I said before, if you are reponsible enough to have sex, you have to deal 
>|> >with the consequences.
>|> 
>|> If I'm responsible enough to be cutting bread in the kitchen and I slip
>|> and slit my wrist should I just deal with the consequences by letting
>|> myself bleed to death?  If I ask a street person into my home to serve
>|> them dinner and they later decide to rob me or kill me, should I not be
>|> allowed to defend myself and my home?  Should I not be allowed to CHANGE
>|> the course of events to preserve my health, life, and lifestyle?
>|> 
>|> Tell you what?  If you ever get pregnant we'll all get together to
>|> disallow you an abortion.  Ok?
>
>You knew what you were getting yourself into when you picked up the knife
>or let someone into your house, you have to deal with what happens when a.  you
>slip and the knife misses the bread and b.  when your perception of people is
>not as good as you thouhgt.  

You didn't answer my whole question.  When you say "deal with the
consequences" do you really mean that I should just bleed to death?  Or if
someone attempts to rob or kill me in my own home I should just let them
do it?  Is this *punishment* for clumsiness, or poor judgement of
character?

>                             If I ever got pregnatnt (biologically impossible)
>I would have the baby, an abortion would not be needed.

That's nice for you.  It's great that you would be able to make that
*choice* and no one else would make it for you.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth, 
"CJ", and Nadja, 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: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Signoff and Request for Information
Date: 22 Nov 92 12:03:46 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

I am unsubscribing from talk.abortion.  Anyone who wants to continue a
discussion with me can do so by email.

Also -- it seems to me that the key to the whole controversy is the
status of the unborn child, and scientific findings as to stages of
fetal development are relevant to that issue.  I would be grateful for
citations to literature regarding such findings.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:04:15 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
>Emil, realize that people literally _do_ mutilate their sex organs in
>order to avoid pregnancy!   It's called sterilization!  And it's such a waste
>when abstinence is 100% effective, and periodic abstinence, learned in a one
>hour class, is safer and as effective as rearranging your hormones every day
>via the pill.

By the way, did you have any of your kids circumcized?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ATUI: The Liberal Position, and Why it is Morally Incorrect
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 22 Nov 92 14:11:07 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

parker@eehp3 (Robert Scott Parker) writes:
> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>>mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
[...]
>>                           - and a man consents to the possibility of paying
>>child-support.  What a woman does not necessarily consent to is carrying to
>>term.
> 
> What the hell do you think consenting to pregnancy but not to term means?

When a fertile woman has sex with a fertile man, there is always a chance
that the woman will be impregnated.  If the woman knows there's always a
chance, then she consents to being impregnated (pregnancy) when she consents
to sex.  This does not mean she consents to bringing the zygote to term.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48102 talk.religion.misc:21193 alt.atheism:21338
From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 16 Nov 92 13:40:10 GMT
Reply-To: pwhite@ems.cdc.com
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <1992Nov14.214406.23543@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
|> How to reconcile the Old Testament God with the New Testament God, (they
|> do appear to be quite different):
|> 
|> He mellowed.
|> 

-- 
The whole idea that there is an inconsistancy between OT and NT misses the
mark. God is the same God in both books. His mercy, compassion, stedfast
love, justice, hatred and anger towards sin are expressed in both testaments.
In both testaments is the idea that God doesn't change. Start with the
idea that the same Being is talked about in all the books of the Bible. If
you start with the premise that there's a different God in the OT than the
NT, you're going to have a diificult time ever meeting up with the One God
of the Bible.
Peter White
disclaimer: None of what is written necessarily reflects 
     			a view of my company.
            His anger lasts only a moment, 
			but his favor lasts a lifetime. Ps 30:5
Newsgroups: talk.abortion