HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 08:00:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.213023.24642@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Douglas Meier) writes:
>>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>>> = (Douglas Meier) writes:
>
>>>>If you must pick on the Church, please try to remember that few Christian
>>>>faiths are much better, save the Amish.....
>
>>>That's your opinion.  I think it's the most repressive of the christian
>>>sects in America.  And their meddling in poltics warrants the end of tax
>>>exemptions for their million dollar cathedrals.  
>
>>I thank you for wacking the part of my post that gives my experience in the
>>Church.  Why address the fact that you can't pigeonhole the hole Church into
>>one mold, when you can just say, "Some of group X do Y; therefore, all of
>>group X does Y?"  
>
>You make no sense.  The Catholic Church, the hierarchy, here in the
>U.S., and at the behest of the Vatican, meddles in U.S. politics.
>
As does Israel, and Islam, and the Fundamentalist Christians (many of whom are
not Catholic, people leave the Catholic faith in order to join these sects). 
The meddling that the Vatican did in the past was actually good in bringing
about several anti-KKK laws.  Remember, the KKK (and several other factions of
lily-white America) didn't much care for us either.

>The pope, allegedly speaking for God here on earth, tries to force all
>catholics to follow a most inane set of repressive rules, and continues
>to treat women of the church like second-class citizens.

Coulda been worse.  I'd rather have the Pope telling me what Church doctrine
is than the gun, thought, and speech control people legislating what I may and
may not do with my life.  

Ya see, if you don't follow the Pope, you have two choices.  You can go to
confession, or you can go to hell.  With the latter group, you either do as
they say, or you will go to jail.
>
>>There are Catholics with money, and there are Catholics without money.  I
>>think you will find that this truth follows with damn near every ethnic group
>>and religious group.
>
>I really don't see the relevance of your remarks.  Perhaps you could
>clarify what "some Catholics" has to do with overall Catholic policy.
>
Maybe you could clarify yours.  I thought your post was something about tax
breaks the Church doesn't need to build its cathedrals.  I merely stated that
all Catholics cannot build cathedrals, as we don't all have the cash, tax
breaks or no.  Sorry for confusing you.
-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  Didn't need no welfare state, everybody
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  pulled his weight...Those were the days!
This University is too Commie-	|  --From theme to "All in the Family"
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57348 talk.politics.misc:69212 talk.religion.misc:27255 misc.legal:23117
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 22 Jan 1993 11:18:21 -0500
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Vienna, Va.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

In article <13960@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
#
#Really?  Birth control was effectively unavailable in this country
#to teenagers in the 1950s.  It was difficult or impossible for even
#married couples to get, until the 1960s.  What happened to the abortion
#rate after birth control became available?  It went up dramatically,
#as did the illegitimacy rate.  Now, I won't claim that one caused
#the other, because I'm quite sure that's not true.  But your claim,
#that there is a "*direct* inverse correlation" is demonstrably
#false.
#
#Birth control education, pills, condoms, etc., are readily available
#throughout the U.S. now.  When are we going to see the unwanted
#pregnancy rate drop to the level it was at in 1960, when these
#items were rare, or usually illegal?
#

Um... Just a thought...

You're neglecting the fact that the sexual revolution took place
during this time period, aren't you?

-- Mike
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: CLINTON CORUPTS BUSH AND REAGAN PROTECTION OF THE UNBORN
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:36:51 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes ...
>Copied without permission from:
>The Los Angeles Times, January 22, 1993

With such blatent dishonesty and outright bigotry, is it any wonder so
few "pro-liars" get any respect?  If this is the cause they espouse, I
want nothing to do with it.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:41:41 GMT

In article <93025.203043KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>If you don't believe that abortion is wrong, then why try to have less
>of them?  Heck, -more- abortions would bring down the birth rate and help
>with overpopulation, and it's safer than childbirth.  Right?
Because contraception is safer than abortion.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Retransmit....
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:23:47 GMT

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
# drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
# > "the Point of Blockading the 'worshipping centers' of FetalIdolatry
# [...]
# > is to Protect the Soul of the UnRepentant...."
# 
# This is an attempt to immamentize the eschaton.  The soul of the
# unrepentant cannot be protected.

Gesundheit.


-- 
+---------------------------+  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: hamilton@mothra.rose.hp.com (Steve Hamilton)
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:09:31 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8.4]

Brian Kendig (bskendig@netcom.com) wrote:
>hamilton@mothra.rose.hp.com (Steve Hamilton) writes:
>>Brian Kendig (bskendig@netcom.com) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Do you also support the right for the new mother of a two week old
>>>>  baby to terminate it's life?  If not, why not? 
>>
>>> Of course not!  Because the mother can get rid of the infant by just
>>> giving it up for adoption.  When you balance the right of an infant to
>>> live against the right of a mother to not be bothered, it's rather
>>> obvious that the infant has quite a bit more at stake.
>>
>>  Why does the infant have more at stake than the fetus.

>Than the MOTHER, not the fetus.  Read more carefully next time.
  My mistake, no need to get testy.

>>  You said the infant could be given up for adoption rather than
>>  killing it, couldn't the same thing be done for the fetus?

>Nope, because if you remove a fetus from the mother's womb, it'll die.
  So will an infant die if not fed and kept warm. 

  I guess my point is, why do we give a magical "right" to a baby outside
  the womb, and none to the baby in the womb. Our nation is skitzophenic(sp?)
  regarding the status of the fetus. On one hand, courts protect the fetus
  adding a murder sentence(in a case where a pregnant woman was also murdered),
  granting inheritance rights but on the other hand allow a woman to
  choose to kill her fetus(read baby).

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58004 misc.legal:23323
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
Date: 26 Jan 1993 05:58:50 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

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."

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.

You are also incorrect in assuming that I am anti-gun-control.  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.  It is incorrect to interpret an attack on faulty
statements as an attack on the position those faulty statements were
trying to support.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers 
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:25:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.152756.9283@pwcs.stpaul.gov> 
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

> The only attribute that the Holocaust and abortion share is that the 
> numbers are real big.

And that some people think those real big numbers are 'no big deal'.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.drugs,alt.magick,alt.pagan
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Smart drugs
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 12:50:23 GMT
Followup-To: alt.drugs

In article <1993Jan20.184144.6464@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article <1993Jan14.161238.10974@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, by mgross@server.cs.jhu.edu (Matthew B. Gross):
> > Um, does anyone know of any smart drugs that produce lasting effects such as
> > an increase in the brain's production of neurotransmitters?
> > I take phenylalanine about every day, and it really sharpens my awareness,
> > but I'd like to find something which could help me in the long-term.
> > 
> > Matt
> 
> I like caffeine, myself. 

Considering the source, that's as strong a recommendation against
the use of caffeine as any I've ever heard.

You might try combining Choline Chloride with the Phenyl
Alanine.  I'm not sure about long-term affects, and I
definitely recommend you avoid either of the two if you
have any blood pressure problems.  I also recommend you get
some of the many books on the market that talk about
"smart drugs."  If my friend were here right now I could
give you the names since he knows them very well.  I don't
remember the names.  I guess that's because I stopped
taking Phenyal Alanine and Choline Chloride when my
deadlines got more comfortable.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Keith Cochran back-pedals from his mandatory sterilization proposal  
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:48:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.034437.8284@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

> Actually, that was my post.  If you look through the thread, you'll see
> it was in response to the tragic story of the 8 year old girl in Mexico
> who had just given birth.
> 
> That lead me to thinking that if we had some sort of 100% reversible
> steralization procedure, we wouldn't have things like this happen.

Back-pedaling so soon from your earlier suggestion that this
procedure should be "mandatory"?


>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu 

  "Personally, I think we need to develop some sort of 100% reversable
   steralization procedure, and make it mandatory for both sexes to be 
   steralized to enter school."

       kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith Cochran) 
      <1993Jan17.210349.13155@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Does James Keegan support Cochran's mandatory sterilization program?
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:09:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.234010.22096@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>>> Why?  Don't you support mandatory (forced) reversable pregnancy?

>> No, I don't believe that people should be forced to have sexual
>> intercourse against their will.  Rape is a crime, and I'd like
>> it to stay that way.  

> Funny, I thought you had stated that you are in favor of forcing women
> to remain pregnant.  

I don't know of anyone who favors forcing women to remain pregnant.
I do know of people who oppose killing human beings, or allowing 
them to die. 

>Larry Margolis


---
Doug Holtsinger
'finger dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu' for documentation which shows that 
Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: the z/e/f's right to life
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:49:50 GMT

In <1993Jan23.072420.17232@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
>>>> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>>>markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>No; but no goldfish has ever exhibited reason or free will -- at 
>>>>>>ANY stage of its existence.
>>>>
>>>>>Neither has a fetus or a zygote.  Try again.
>>>>
>>>>Neither did a newborn infant named Cathi, once upon a time.
>>
>>>Ever try feeding a newborn infant something it didn't want?
>>
>>Response to external stimulus != (reason) or (free will)

>Ergo, you have neither free will nor reason?

Reason and free will => response to external stimuli,
but
Response to external stimuli => reason or free will

>-- 
>Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
>ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsch

Mark Pundurs
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Use of Force
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:29:36 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1993Jan24.184156.5435@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.114141.9949@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>>Two laws I've suggested would work well here: 1) Prosecute minorities
>>as adults when they commit gang-related crimes.  2) For legal
>>purposes, treat groups of protestors as ad hoc gangs.  This would put
>>an end to the tactics of using children who are for all intents and
>>purposes currently immune to legal recourse for their terroristic
>>actions.

>Just a minor point, but your limitation of prosecuting gang-related
>crimes as adults to minorities strikes me as fairly racist. Are you
>operating under the false impression that gang members are minorites?

I think Greg had a lil ol Freudian "oopsie".  Greg meant to say "minors",
yessssss?

Ye shall prostrate yerself in front of the graven image of
Sojourner Truth, click your heels three times and say, "I will not harbor
a racist subconcious.  I will not harbor a rascist subconcious.  I will
not harbor a racist subconcious."

You may now go in peace, my little mackerel.

--Teddi
------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: O.R. protest against homosexuals on CSPAN
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:10:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.183756.7639@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
#In article <1993Jan22.171126.11425@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
##From article <C0xMKq.AsE.1@cs.cmu.edu>, by garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):
[text deleted]

### (Thanks to Suzanne for illustrating
### this last similarity so well.)
##
##Please explain to me how avoiding contraception or abortion is "hateful"?
aa
#It's not, Suzzie.
#(You, to Patrick re his step-daughter):
#'She's not yours, she's another mans. A man who has been with your
#wife. I hope it drives you crazy.'
#That is hateful.
#'Any woman who has sex before marriage is lower then a prostitute. at
#least a prostitute gets paid.'
#That is hateful.

That is, of course, what I meant.  Suzanne is a hateful person.
Chaney/Hall describes her as a good Catholic, btw.

#Anybody else want to provide some examples?

Nah, Suzanne will generate some more before I could remember
any.  

Susan
From: rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Carol Everett
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:06:52 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech CERL/EE, Atlanta, Ga

Corrections.

In article <81374@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|In article <1993Jan22.163003.20523@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
||In article <81308@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
||>|Abortion is a surgical procedure performed only by licensed phsycians
||>|(legally). It is certainly beyond the scope of practice for nurses,
||>|and is beyond the scope of practice for Physicians Assistants and
||>|Nurse Pracitioners in every state for which I have seen the practice
||>|acts.
||>Again 15 states don't have this legislated.
||Can you document this, Mr. Pitts?
|
|Check with Carol Everett.  I didn't say licensed doctors routinely
                                         ^^^^^^^^
|perform abortions in 15 states, but that the states don't have it
|legislated.

This should have been "unlicensed doctors" not licensed ones.

||>|>>   - 20 women (out of 35,000 abortions) "maimed or killed"
||>|>That would be surprising, since the overall rate is something
||>|>like 1/100 major complications and 1-2/100000 deaths.
||>|>Were her doctors particularly incompetent or is she just being
||>|>VERY loose with the term "maimed or killed"
||>
||>Carol said on the radio that she had one (1) death and, I think,
||>thirty-five (35) were maimed at her clinics.  I forget how many
||>abortions they provided.  However, the numbers she gave for
||>complications was that 1 in 500 had to have a hysterectomy or colostomy. 
||
||Well she should really make up her mind. I would consider both of
||those "maimed" and that means that 70 people were maimed. Which
||one is it, Mr. Pitts?
|
|How so, Mr. Rescorla - I said I didn't have the numbers on how many 
|abortions her clinics provided.  If you use the other persons numbers,
|you'd get your numbers, but I can't confirm the 35,000 number.  I
|remembered and used the 1 death, 35 maimed, and the 1 in 500 Hs and Cs.

Ok, I missed remembered and I'm admitting it.  I heard the radio clip
again on the way home and the numbers Everett used were one (1) death
and nineteen (19) maimed at her clinics.  There were 35,000 (thirty-five
thousand) abortions performed at her clincs and during the last eighteen (18) 
months there was an average of one (1) historectomy or colostomy per five 
hundred (500) abortions.  [Total number of abortions during the last 18 
months was not given.]

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu  |    Love and Worship God the Father and His Son, 
                      --|--            the Creator of the Earth. 
Pro-Life!          -|-  |  -|-  Come bow down in worship, let us kneel
Pro-Responsibility! |   |   |   before the Lord Our Maker.  Psalm 95:6 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: involuntary servitude and abortion
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 16:10:16 GMT

Just as a reminder: The analogy is between keeping a slave (or
involuntary servant) and aborting a fetus, not between keeping a slave
and keeping a fetus.

tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

>In article <1993Jan15.180414.25690@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>>Okay, it's a "great big difference".  A fetus has not been born.  An
>>involuntary servant has.  A fetus is inside another person.  An
>>involuntary servant is not.  We know this.  How does this "great big
>>difference" disallow the above conclusion?

(I'll refresh that conclusion: If the argument, "If you don't like
abortion, don't have one" is a sound argument for keeping abortion
legal, then "If you don't like involuntary servitude, don't keep an
involuntary servant" is a sound argument for legalized involuntary
servitude.)

>Couple of reasons:
>	1.  Living inside another person (as a fetus does) causes an
>	    intimate risk with injury and death that would not be there
>	    if the fetus wasn't.

Likewise, not keeping a slave subjects one to a risk of injury and
death.

>	2.  Using another person's bodily resources in all other cases is
>	    *always* VOLUNTARY.

Please explain how this statement precludes reaching the above
conclusion.  I can see that an implication is added to the first
argument:

    If you don't like abortion, don't have one.  If you're pregnant,
    this means you voluntarily choose to use your bodily resources to
    support the fetus.

However, we can infer something analogous for slavery:

    If you don't like slavery, don't keep a slave.  If you have work
    that must be done, this means you voluntarily choose to use your
    bodily resources to complete it.

>And again, I ask you (maybe you'll answer this time):  if abortion were
>made illegal, and a woman aborted herself, would you charge her with
>Murder 1?

I don't recall being asked previously.  Does this question relate to
an analogy between slavery and abortion?  I'll provide my answer,
expecting the relevance will soon be made clear.  Given that abortion
is illegal, this person would be properly charged with violating
whatever law prohibits abortion.




                                Gregg Skinner


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
From: creps@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:55:14 GMT

In article <1737@tecsun1.tec.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>"direct inverse correlation". Clayton apparently knows one Prostestant
>couple that felt led (by scripture, presumably) not to practice
>birth control, found out that it didn't work out, and ended up practicing
>a more extreme form of birth control in the end. I don't know of any
>religious group that bans vasectomy - although not being Catholic, I
>really don't know what the official line of Mother Church is after all.

   Sterilization procedures are not permitted of Catholics.  They are
considered not only artificial contraception, but also (and this word
is used as a technical term) "mutilation."  That is, they destroy the
human body's natural ability to perform some function, in this case to
reproduce.  A surgical procedure which is necessary for other medical
reasons, but which has as a side-effect sterilization, is however
permitted (if the "other medical reasons" are serious enough).

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion