HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: PRO "LIFE" IS B......T!
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 23:02:46 GMT

In article <1a9sc0INNd6k@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>
>   If Martin Guerrero is so 'pro-life,'  why do you not fight gun
>ownership, why do you not fight cigarette smoking, why do you not
>oppose ALL war?  The 'pro-life' name sounds SOOO lofty and noble,
>but it holds as much truth as Dan Quayle's head holds intelligent 
>thought.
>   By the way, how many crack babies have YOU abopted today?  

Of course he hasn't adopted any crack babies - it would be inconvenient.
Remember, only women are supposed to be inconvenienced in t.a.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: SAT worship
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1992 19:45:42 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In  <nyikos.718158337@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep28.211344.144148@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.c
>
> >In  <1992Sep28.185438.9420@sniap.mchp.sni.de>  frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de
> > : regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
> >> : We only ask for SAT scores for those folks who *don't* practice rational
> >>   ^^
> >> : thought......
> >>
> >> Is this the royal We, or were you speaking for the net again?
>
> >Presumably, she's speaking for those talk.abortion posters who ask for SAT
> >scores.  Please try to keep up with the rest of the posters.
>
> Take your own advice, you prevaricator, and read "The Genesis of the whole
> silly SAT Flap".

This is a rather stupid comment, Peter; I make a suggestion that you should
keep up, and you say "take your own advice" and point me to a post you made
five days *after* mine?  I do keep up; I've already responded to that post
(which is just in talk.abortion; I'll redirect followups there since this
has nothing to do with talk.religion.misc).  I have no doubt that you'll
run away without addressing the evidence I presented for my claims, as
you've done numerous times before.

(I wonder if Peter will pull an Eric Gorr, and claim that some day we'll
have invented a time machine, and I'd be able to go into the future and
see what was *going* to be posted, so I should have known about it last
week.  Oh yeah - and the cost to do so will be nil.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:40:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.170103.28029@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.234527.27140@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep28.182615.14598@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep25.194211.17216@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Abortion kills an organism whose only similarity to an adult human,
>>>>>for many weeks after conception, is its DNA structure. 
>>>
>>>>   This does mean that this "organism" is indeed a member of homo sapiens
>>>>right?  
>>>
>>>Only if you consider a malignant tumor a member of homo sapiens.
>>>
>>
>>Tumors are mere mutations.  At conception, the unborn is not just a mutation.
>
>Not JUST a mutation, eh? But a mutation, nonetheless, in the sense that its
>DNA differs from that of the organism in which it resides, and in the sense
>that it disrupts the normal biological process of that organism.
>
>Sounds like a mutation to me...
>

Disrupts the normal biological process of that organism?  Do you really
mean to say that women were never biologically designed to carry on
the human race?  I mean, the wider hips.  Were they just accidental?  Or
were they widened to allow births?  I don't want to get into detail, but
it seems to me that our babies are designed to be biologically compatible
with their mothers.

As for "mere mutations," the new unborn is a product of two people, not
just one.  And even if you were to think of it as a "mutation," what other
mutation can you claim that is human life itself?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 02:40:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.170145.1489@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> 
> In article <adams.717435618@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> > Except that I know that Rush's persona is conservative and pretty much can 
> > guess where he stands on the issues...with El Presidente it's a whole 'nother
> > ball game...
> 
> Bush repeatedly says he is a conservative.  Are you saying he's lying?
> Sounds like a character issue to me...  :-)
> 
> >                maybe we should call Nancy's astrologer to tell us what
> > George's positions are...
> 
> No, that was Reagan's schedule... :-)

What's the difference between George Bush and John Gotti.

John Gotti has a conviction.

Dean Kaflowitz

(If people are gonna post lightbulb jokes, at least mine is
topical.)
> 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Does Brother Gorr Acknowledge Madonna as a Profit?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:46:32 GMT

nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
] In article <1992Sep25.173400.23838@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
] >
] >Well, as an initial responce, I would encourage you to listen to or get the
] >words for:
] >
] >What about the Love
] >
] >By Amy Grant on the LEAD ME ON cd.
] >
] >More is comming...
] 
] Yeah. I think another scholarly publication on the morality of abortion
] is Neil Sadaka's 'Having my baby.' :-)
] 
] How about BIBLICAL support for / against abortion? To the best of my
] knowledge, Amy Grant did not write a single book of the Bible.


and who Can forget madonna's Classic Anthem of 
Traditional Family Values with:

"Poppa don't preach..."


ciao
drieux


ps: his biblical scholarship is so Stunning.....


-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
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: 30 Sep 92 23:57:26 GMT

In <usglkrx.717686544@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>In <1992Sep25.211600.23804@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>>><1992Sep18.233054.14674@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>>>>From article by iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski):
>>>>> In article mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>>>>> >In nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>>> >    <...> the fact that Suzanne
>>>>> >used the word "crucified" to refer to the justifiable tongue-lashing
>>>>> >Christ gave those who debased His temple trivializes the agony and
>>>>> >suffering He underwent in His death and spiritual separation from His
>>>>> >Father.

I've already followed up to this post, but since then I realized that
there are many layers of deception that I haven't addressed before.

1. The original statement of M. Price, which Storga cunningly deleted,
had to do with the "white hot flashes" of Jesus, with the comment,
"Think of those poor Scribes and Pharisees, how they must have suffered."
[This I did comment on before, along with the fact that Suzanne's 
rejoinder, directed at M. Price and NOT Jesus, was "Yeah, he really
crucified them," putting the "suffering" of the Scribes and Pharisees 
into perspective.]

NEW BUSINESS:

2. M. Price cunningly made it seem that the original quote was about
Jesus driving the money-changers out of the temple.  The scribes and
pharisees did not "debase" the temple in this way, and I cannot 
recall any biblical statement that they did debase the temple.

3. This same Gordon Storga has brought trumped-up charges to bear on
Suzanne which I have begun to address in posts.  See my post, "Trumped
up charges against Suzanne. Demurrer #1" posted to both talk.abortion
and talk.religion.misc for a bit of background.  I stand by what I
wrote in another post on this subject a couple of weeks back:

			--------------------
Date:  7 Sep 92 19:34:40 GMT
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Distribution: world

In <8cqnc+=.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

><1992Sep3.222813.16609@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by mcbeanb@brandonu.ca:
>>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>> Beware lest somebody come along and second guess the "quality" of _your_
>>>> lifestyle, Brian, and hence whether _your_ life is "worth living".

>You've alreadyt done this to a degree.  You've already decided that 
>anyone living without your religious views is not living a "quality" life.
>You'd even like to legislate things so they have to live your views.  In
>fact, your entire religious viewpoint is that those people who don't live
>a certain "quality" of life will be *rightfully* killed.

People keep telling me of all kinds of horrible things Suzanne has
posted in the past.  I haven't seen any that would even remotely
justify the above statements, and I am calling your bluff: if you have
any evidence Suzanne said these things, please produce them.

>Don't you think it's a little hypocritical of you to warn others about
>"second-guessing" other peoples lifestyle, when you are doing your best to
>do just that?

And if you can't produce anything, then as far as I'm concerned about
your further charge of hypocrisy:

Storga : velcro : : Forgach : teflon

>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 a goddess among women, and proud of it.

Are you a Wiccan, like Eric?

		__________________________
nb. Storga has admitted to being a confirmed atheist.  I wonder whether
that rules out being a Wiccan.

More about velcro, Storga, and hypocrisy in the next three lines:

>>>Suzanne seems to ignore the castigation of other Christians who take her
>>>to task for trivializing their god's contributions.  I notice she doesn't
>>>apologize for it.

>>Get with it, Gordon!  Don't you see how Ivan has exposed M. Price's 
>>"castigation" for the hoax that it is?  And I've addressed this
>>"castigation" myself several times.

>Well, just to be fair, I asked my aunt what she thought of Suzanne's
>"joke".  My aunt is 78 years old, goes to church every Sunday, doesn't
>drink, etc.

I recommend that you NOT show this follow-up to your aunt until you have
had a chance to gauge her reaction to my one of yesterday.  Her heart
might not bear up well under the depths of human hypocrisy which it 
reveals.

Peter Nyikos

QUOTE OF THE DAY:

"Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and
utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me.
...Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
		----The words of Jesus, spoken during the Sermon on 
		    the Mount [Matt. 5:11-12]
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: To Eric Gorr, eternal college freshman and all around geek
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:57:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct2.182259.17823@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@cie.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> In article <1992Sep29.161412.12396@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
> >Hey, Eric,
> >
> >I'm pretty tired of you saying things like "what happens when medical
> >technology makes..." and following up with "They're working on that,
> >you know".  Tell me, knowledgeable college boy, just WHERE is all this
> >wonderful scientific research happening?  in WHAT publications have 
> >these things been reported?  Please cite me each publication and report--
> >and something concrete, please, not "some movie somewhere" as that
> >means absolutely nothing to me.
> >
> >Oh, and I can afford your mere pittance of $8/hour.  I pay my babysitter
> >more.
> 
> Wonderful...I let you know how many hours I spend doing the
> research and once I receive payment, I give you the
> references.  

I see that your arguments are not worth your support.  You
insist instead that someone pay you to support your own arguments.
I agree with you that they are not worth trying to support.

> By the way, How does it feel to have some much rage towards another
> person building up inside?  I am curious....

Ms Brindle did not express rage.  I would characterize her attitude
as more a case of contempt.  It is, in light of your presentation,
an appropriate attitude.  I would guess, and here I admit that I
am merely speculating, that she feels contemptuous of you.

Were she enraged at you, I suspect she would have called you
a Nazi, in the best net.tradition (thanks Eric, for a reasonably
good line).

And I agree, you are curious.  A very curious fellow indeed.

> (You may also consult your near-by university library...there are
> people there waiting, and willing to help you)

Ah, you make an argument and expect those who disagree with you
to support it.  I join Ms Brindle in her contempt.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 09:23:17 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  <1992Sep25.170000.19435@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> In article <r69n15#.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> >
> > egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
> > >In article <x98n8hc.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> > >>
> > >> eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
> > sperm and eggs are also human, but you insist that they are not people.
>
> Do you understand why?  If not, let me explain again.  Left seperated, the
> egg and sperm will _never_ develop in a child.

Left by itself, the zygote, the embryo, and the fetus will *never* develop
into a child.  Do you understand yet?  If not, please reread until you do.

> > And you're speaking nonsense.  If you're going to make up definitions of
> > words to suit your whim, what's the point of _any_ discussion?
>
> I am not making up definitions of words to suit my whims...I've thought
> about these definitions and argued them over a few years with many people.
> They are not new to me.

They may not be new *to* you, but they're new *with* you.

> In any case, the point of the discussion would be then to show why my
> definitions are useless, unclear or not understandable.

They're useless because they're not used by anyone but you.  They're unclear
because the words you're using have a clearly defined, well known meaning,
and you're using them to mean something else.  They're not understandable
because when a reader sees "interference", they naturally think of the
standard definition of "interference" they will find if they look in a
dictionary, and *nobody* in the world except you would think of the
"Eric Gorr definition of interference".  Clear?

If you're interested in communicating, it helps if you attempt to use the
same language as everyone else.  If you don't want to communicate, then
please say so and we'll stop wasting our time; you can then make up all
the definitions you like and nobody will bother attempting to translate
"Gorr-speak" into English.

If you want me to explain further, I'd be happy to sit on your chest and
bonk you on the head with the condensed version of the Oxford English
Dictionary until this point becomes clear.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 16:57:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.031102.1065@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>choice they want to discuss.  Here's a good choice for couples: abstinence
>until they are fully ready for children.  I mean, in all the arguements that
>concept always gets lost.  And some folks think you just beamed down from a UFO
>when you bring it up.
Because it's appallingly stupid. Are you really suggesting that my
friend who just got married should not have sex with his wife until
he's ready for kids, which could well be NEVER?
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39689 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6137
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Date: 1 Oct 92 01:31:48 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Sep30.214053.11689@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Correctus to you, Nadja) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.211730.21809@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Stoned, aka Nadja Adolf) writes:

>>Hmmm....I suddenly see why alleged Right-to-Lifers are uncomfortable
>>with using brain death to legally decide when someone is dead. :-)

>Why? Because you would be legally dead?

No. Because if brain death were the criterion, you'd have been parted out
years ago.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:59:25 GMT

In article <lcotrnINN24i@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.213814.25101@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct01.070324.149832@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>In  <1992Sep30.185401.4741@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>>> In article <1acr4vINNr0q@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne R
>
>>>> >You just don't get it, do you.  Having a child, bearing a child, carrying
>>>> >a child, isn't about a child.  It is about the person who is having, bearing
>>>> >and carrying.  Until the child is there, it's about the WOMAN.
>
>>>> Dehumanizing the child.  Yes, the woman's considerations have to be looked
>>>> at but so does the right of the unborn child to live.
>
>I've looked at it and my conclusion is that atleast for the first 6
>months the woman's rights far outweigh any possible rights of the fetus.
>
>>>I think you're a little confused.  Nothing's being "dehumanized".  We all
>>>know that it's a human fetus.  The point is, it's not a *child* until it's
>>>*born*.
>
>>Which allows us to say that abortion, does indeed, destroy and kill
>>human life.
>
>Yes, your correct. So what? 
>

Have we been so accustomed to death that we fail to acknowledge the importance
of human individuals?  In a way yes.  We hear in the news everyday that
a plane crashes, 200 die.  AN earthquake happens and 1000 die.  All in all
we say, how tragic, then go on with our lives with little concern for the
1000.  Yes, I too have gone through this phases.  

But are those lives any less important simply because we don't care too much
for them?  Face it.  We don't think of those who died in the crash as John
Doe, Julie Mansfiend, Katerina so and so.  We think of them as the 200 people
that died, nameless faces.

Abortion treats our fellow humans, our own children in similar fashion.  
The value of those we abort becomes virtually set to zero.  Some would say,
the value of those we abort is actually negative.  Let us put human life in
a better position lest we ourselves become victims of those who look down
upon human life.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:06:33 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
-rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:
->we have a bit more control over our own sex drives than we
->do over hurricanes or rapists. where we have control, 
->perhaps we should accept the responsibility of our actions.
-
-Well, well, well...
-
-I see that YOU, TOO, are unaware that abortion, for some women, IS
-a responsible solution.  Please try to memorize this..I know it will be
-hard, as you seem to have trouble rationalizing it, but it is true.
-Now, take the pencil in your little hands and write 1000 times....
-  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
-  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
-  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
-
-There.  Is it sinking in yet?
-
-(nod your little head.)

Bare with me. A hard-core pro-lifer would respond...
I think I need to write this about 1.5 million times.
[Significance (to put gasoline on the fire): that's the number of
abortions performed in the United States every year.]

Okay, to make it "fair," take 93% of 1.5M, removing the instances of
rape, incest, mother's health, or even fetal health.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Taking life pretty seriously. NOT.