HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:43:54 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1k2juqINNfig@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>Gee, an anti-gun-control nut crawls out of the woodwork. The Net is surprised..
>>
>>>There's another rule of statutory construction called _find out what the words
>>>mean_.  If you apply this to "well-regulated militia" you will find out that
>>>nearly everyone in the NRA, for example, is a member, ...
>>
>>They may (arguably) qualify under "militia", maybe, but what about the "well-
>>regulated" part? And what about the "necessary to the security of a free 
>
>You appear to be assuming that "well-regulated" means "under the control of
>the government."  This is not correct -- "well-regulated" means approximately
>"functioning well."

I disagree, and so does every etymological source I've checked. The only 
people who seem to believe this are those arguing for a particular, anti-gun-
control interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Coincidence?

Besides, even if we grant "well-regulated", there is still that bothersome
_piece de resistance_ -- "necessary to the security of a free state". How
do you respond to, for instance, the Mafia example? They're well-regulated,
and, arguably, military in form ("militia"). But they're not necessary to 
the security of a free state. Do they get an automatic RKBA or not?

>There was a Supreme Court case from the 1930's that contained a good historical
>examination of the meaning of the Second Amendment.  I don't have the
>cite handy, but it should not be hard to find.

I'd be interested in seeing an electronic copy of that. If it's the decision
I've seen paraphrased in net.debates before, I have a feeling the issues which
were addressed in it weren't so general as to support an anti-gun-control
interpretation for ANY AND ALL purposes, just certain ones.

>You are also incorrect in assuming that I am anti-gun-control.  

And you were incorrect in assuming that I have not researched the issue, and/or
that I do not know the history and meaning of the key terms. Usually, such 
patronizing insults come only from ruffled anti-gun-control nuts. If I 
mischaracterized your political position based on your tone, I apologize.

>However, just
>because I would like to see a lot of people who currently have guns not be
>able to have them, does not mean that I am going to support misreading
>the Constitution.  

And I say just the converse -- I'm nominally anti-gun-control, but I don't
think that specious Second Amendment arguments are, strategically, the proper
way to fight gun control initiatives. If that much legal "ammo" is needed, 
push for a new Amendment. Isn't that the "well-regulated" thing to do? :-)

							- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57362 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13496 alt.rush-limbaugh:14832
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-s
Subject: Re: Clinton Communist Cretin
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 02:40:04 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
> ] 
> ] I'm curious; a lot of people on this list seem to be hold the 
> ] very strange idea that Bill Clinton participated in anti-war
> ] rallies in Moscow.  Does this just reflect a general lack of 
> ] reading comprehension, or is this a lie that Mr. Limbaugh is
> ] actually spreading on his show?
> 
> Well Bill, its sort of a Logical Consequence. Clinton was
> not in favor of the War, and Was Not Able to get someone
> to get him into a Cushy NonCombat Stay At Home Flag Waving Position,
> so it Is Clear that He had to be a Communist Sympathiser.
> 
> Since he, like many of the Bible Smugglers also working
> inside the Soviet Block Nations, were there for 'cause' it
> is Clear that Clinton and the Bible Smugglers were Obviously
> Formenting Armed Revolution Against the USA.
> 
> Does that help you make sense of it now?
> 
> ciao
> drieux
> 
> 
> -- 
> MajorModernDayProblems: 
> 
> sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
> and they may not be connected..... 



remember this Moscow canard came from the lips of Drooling Bob Dornan, 
extremist right winged creppy Congress geek.  He knew it wasn't true, but 
what the hey, this was an election we were talking about, not truth or 
honor.

Reminds me of an old LBJ joke.  LBJ was in a tight race early in his 
career and was up late with his aides discussing ways to screw LBJ's 
opponent.  Finally after several hours of fruitless arguing, LBJ says, 
"Well, we could pass the rumor that my opponent has had carnal knowledge 
of the pigs on his ranch." His aides just look at LBJ, and finally one 
says, "We can't spread such rumors.  Not too many people would believe 
it."  LBJ just smiles and says, "Yreah, but I would like to hear him have 
to get up and deny it."

Dornan seems to be a student of LBJ.

Pope Charles   SubGenius Pope Of Houston.     Slack!

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:21:54 GMT

OK, remedial reading time.

"We, the people of the United States (Gosh, I guess that means us)
 in order to form a more perfect union (Hmm?, guess there was something
wrong with the other one) to establish justice, insure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general
welfare, ( good things to have, but promote does not mean to
establish by fiat) and secure the blessings of liberty (guess that
means being free to do our own thing, as long as we don't trample
other folks rights in the process), do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America. (Aha! now here we
get down to the details, we're going to tell this government of
ours exactly what its duties and powers are).

Funny thing is that nowhere in the ensuing articles or amendments
did we tell them they could establish laws governing abortion.
I guess that this must be one of the rights we kept for ourselves.

You may not believe, as I do, that this opening sentence is the
governing factor in what follows. Like many people, you may
think that it is just a preamble. Just like those Robert Bork
"constructionists" who would build into the Constitution, things
that simply are not there. Guess "constructionists" is the right
label.

Grouch


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57288 talk.religion.misc:27221 misc.legal:23084
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Into the Breach, one more time
Date: 19 Jan 93 23:47:54 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan18.202253.13087@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> ] In article <1993Jan14.170018.22693@panix.com> fnord@panix.com (Cliff Heller) writes:
# ] # People can pass out whatever they want on the sidewalk.  They can pray
# ] # wherever they want.  It sure sounded like you were talking about the
# ] # blockaders initially.
# ] 
# ] Not in Houston or New York City, where judges, in blatant and brazen
# ] disregard for the Constitution of the United States, have declared
# ] "gospel-free" and "prayer-free" zones in public areas.
# 
# Would you like to clarify what you mean by these 'free zones'?????
# 
# And would you also like to make a comment on the fact that
# the Federal government has, in Direct Violation of Biblical
# Standards OUTLAWED SLAVERY!!!!! on the Whim of ModernSeXularHumanism????

More liberal ignorance.  Slavery is NOT supported by the Bible,
and it was evangelical Christianity which played the major part 
in organizing the abolitionist movement -- because American 
slavery was based on essentially anti-Christian ideas about 
racial inequality.

# drieux
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Suuuuuuuure... (formerly: Does James Keegan support...)
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 08:23:02 GMT

<1993Jan25.125826.10532@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- nietS T yaJ) writes:
>What: <1993Jan25.010941.27047@ncsu.edu>
>Who:  dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
>>>  = margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>> = dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
>>>>>= ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
...
>If any pro-choicer fingers dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu for documentation showing
>that quoting Bill Clinton out of context throughout the Democratic
>Convention is unrestricted pregnancy-on-demand and refuses to apologize
>for insults about a deaf and mute newsreader which provides a direct quote
>about the closing of the Margolis mind or the mendacity of Gordon Storga
>or voluntarily adds their name to the Susan Garvin fan club list, assume
>they're a Borg and be sure to add an extra K to Patrick's name.

"HumphreyK"??

;-)

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: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:41:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.020840.23212@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.214302.24837@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>
>>If women can become priests, bishops, archbishop, cardinals or popes,
>>they will not be having the same opportunities as men, but they
>>will be taken as men.
>
>	Bullshit. 

Hey, let's be more educated here. DidI say something that deserved
such a show of disrespect?
Can't we behave like civilized people?


>Women in other occupations still stay biologically
>female.

GO and complain to god, not to me. Or, better yetr, go and complain
to Peter, who, I guess, is in the Vatican, under the floor.
Women, for the church, are not the same as men, and then, they play
different roles and instruments.


>	But is it truly "separate but equal" or is it "separate and
>unequal"? The latter is the case, since women are excluded from all
>critical decision-making posts.

Well, that is the way the church works. How can you complain about
this point when the religion itself has no logic nor reason at all to
be there?


>-- 
>/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
>/lip@s1.gov

IS Loren male or female?

AAP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: kkelly@TC1.ccs.ryerson.ca (Kevin Kelly)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Organization: Ryerson
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:28:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.222122.26394@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
>Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
>Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:21:22 GMT
>In article <1993Jan26.152124.8182@seachg.uucp> 
>chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask) writes:
>
>> No one is "pro-abortion".  
>
>There are several self-described "pro-abortionists" on the net,
>along with a few pro-choicers who believe that infanticide and
>abortion are not immoral. 
>
>> [Pro-lifers] want to tell others what to do.  
>
>Pro-choicers want to tell others what to do.  They want to
>tell certain human beings that they must die.  
>
>> The "pro-choice" people want to defend *your* right to choose, within
>> reasonable limits, whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.  Very few
>> of the "pro-choice" people believe in third trimester abortion-on-demand,
>> or anyhting like it - those that do are basically extremists.
>
>Just about every pro-choicer that I've met on talk.abortion supports
>third trimester abortion-on-demand.  Some pro-choicers have said that 
>a person can't be pro-choice unless they oppose third-trimester abortion
>restrictions.  And Roe v. Wade allows a woman to have an abortion for 
>any reason, during any part of pregnancy, all the way up to the point
>of birth (documentation available upon request via e-mail).
>

Once again with a sweeping paint brush (or keystrokes) Doug decides the 
views of those who consider themselves pro-choice. Do me a favour and tell 
me what your views are, not what mine are or anyone elses.

Kevin


>
>>-chris blask
>
>
>Doug Holtsinger
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu
>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:58:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.025305.24483@pony.Ingres.COM> 
dan@Ingres.COM (a Rose arose) writes:

>>> ...  The fact that sex is used for pleasure 
>>> is sin--it should never be used for self-gratification!

>> No, it shows that you're an arrogant self-righteous prude. 
>> Christianity has no monopoly on the "value of life".  For 
>> you to claim otherwise just shows what an ignoramous you 
>> happen to be.

> Who says christians are a bunch of prudes that think having sex for fun
> is sinful?  

I didn't say that Christians are a "bunch of prudes", I said
that HE was a prude.  I mean, the guy thinks masturbation is
immoral!   Nobody has to sit here and listen politely to such
horse-hooey.  If you think having sex for fun is wrong, then
you're a prude too.



Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Something's Missing!?
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:45:01 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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

>In article <adams.728067759@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>>>In article <v77tln8@zola.esd.sgi.com>, cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>>>All the quotes you have are from the Old Testament and as I have stated 
>>>earlier that the Old Testament is Old history and no longer valid....
>>>Although it is useful for studying history all the laws are not valid...
>>>Before Jesus came the OT was what counted and If I am correct still counts
>>>taoday for Jews but Christian follow the NT as the Law....
>>Huh?  Jesus certainly didn't hold this position!  Remember what he said?
>Sure, he talked the talk, but did he walk the walk?
>
>>Not one iota of the Law (Torah) and Prophets would pass away.  What Christ 
>>did was move away from doctrinaire following of the law and ask for following 
>>the spirit.  Christ went BEYOND the literal requirements of the OT.  Read the
>>passages in Matthew 5.  Christ goes BEYOND murder, to hate.  BEYOND adultery 
>>to lust, BEYOND an 'eye for an eye' to turn the other cheek.
>Nonsense. Jesus directly contradicts the literal requirements of
>the law. The law requires you to stone adulterers.
>
>>All of Jesus teaching is grounded in the OT.
>Again, I think this is untrue. Jesus provides a very different
>conception of the law than is found in the OT. For instance,
>he ignores the entire law of purity, which was very important.
>
>>Try studying the Bible a bit...
>I have and so has CJ. DOn't assume that just because w disagree
>with you, we are uninformed.

Sorry, Eric, but the comment was directed at Jeffrey Price, not at you or
CJ...look at the attributions lines...CJ's comments were deleted, but not
the reference line to the post.  I have no problem with your reading, or
CJ's - we approach from different directions...

 -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
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: PAS or Post Abortion Syndrome
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:52:36 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
# garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):
# > forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
# > #Yes, of course.  Why else would programs like "Project Rachel" be growing
# > #so large so quickly?
# > 
# > How large?  How quickly?
# > 
# > Oh, sorry, I forgot, this is Suzanne.  She won't have any actual
# > data to back up her claims.  Never mind.
# 
# What do you care.  It's mere continued existance in cities across the country
# prove the existence of Post Abortion Syndrome.

Heh.  Personally, I share Sara Diamond's opinion regarding the issue
of the so-called `post-abortion stress syndrome' that the women who
claim to suffer from it are primarily women whose `support network'
consists entirely of religious fundamentalists actively working to
generate said stress in women who have had abortions.

Why should the existence of Project Rachel surprise anyone?


-- 
+---------------------------+  I wasn't expecting it.  When Danny Elfman
| J H Woodyatt              |  sang the words, `goo goo ga choo,' Sunday
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  night, I cracked.  Some horrors are too
+---------------------------+  large to shade out.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: What's the SAT deal?
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 08:17:56 GMT

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes ...
> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>}As I recall it, someone SPECIFICALLY ASKED him for his SAT's.
>}So no one can get off ridiculing him for consenting to answer such
>}a direct question.
>
>Let me put it this way.  Supposing someone asked you to post your
>bra size.  If you even acknowledged it at all, I would expect you 
>would decline, with a comment somewhat to the effect of it's none of
>my business and besides it doesn't have any bearing on what we
>discuss here.  If you did post it, I imagine you might be ridiculed
>even though "someone SPECIFICALLY ASKED" you to do so.

Say, that's a good question.  What IS your bra size anyway, Suzanne?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57280 talk.politics.misc:69113 talk.religion.misc:27213 misc.legal:23072
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 18 Jan 93 20:00:27 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <Jan.14.05.09.02.1993.11547@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> In article <1993Jan14.004714.17246@tessi.com> allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren) writes:
# # I would like to state that women will *always* somehow find a way to
# # get an abortion, whether it is legal or not, the difference is that
# # those who have no money will do anything to get one, even if it means
# # using a coat hanger, while those with money will find a doctor who will
# # perform the abortion at a high cost.
# 
# Another, much more glaring, difference (which you seem to have
# overlooked) would be that women will think twice about the possibility
# of getting pregnant, and illegitimacy rates would probably drop
# dramatically.  (And your real complaint is possibly grounded in the
# fact that you would find it much more difficult to get laid.)

This assumes that rational thought is involved with those pregnancies.
I doubt it.  You are assuming that abortion was legalized, and this
caused the decline in public morals.  I think it's quite the opposite --
the decline in public morals dramatically increased pressure for
easy access to abortions.  Prohibiting it won't improve morality in
this country -- but improving public morality by persuasion will
dramatically reduce the demand for abortion.

Persuasion, not laws, is the key.

# # What I find so two-faced is how people like Bush and Quayle said
# # they'd support their daughter's decision *if* their daughter became
# # pregnant and decided to abort, yet these same two political people are
# # against abortion.
# 
# Straw man.  That was a loaded question that was posed to Quayle.  You
# (and those who asked such a question) are more interested in
# discrediting those who stand up for morality than you are in the
# answer to that question,

I think the real answer is that Bush, Quayle, and many others, share
Mr. Kaldis' belief that making abortion illegal will cause a lot of
people in this country to start being careful about birth control
and self-control.  It isn't that they want coat hanger abortions to
come back, it's that they honestly think that people are rational
enough to stop getting pregnant if they don't want to have a child.
I'm unpersuaded that this is the case.

# my own only.  Do you seriously   ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The ongoing jokes on talk.abortion
Date: 21 Jan 1993 10:26:44 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <root.727557692@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa...

Catholic friend of mine related the story that she had thought, for years,
that the phrase really was:

Me a cowboy, me a cowboy, me a mexican cowboy.

Couldn't figure out why the priests would be saying such things....

No offense intended, just a funny story.

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion