HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Thank you, sincerely (was Re: Only God Can Help Us!
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:39:10 GMT

katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:

>> Thank you, Steve and Cameron, for bringing back the realization that
>> there *are* Christians, evangelicals even, who are fair and reasonable.
>> That not all Christians are hateful and intolerant. That not all
>> Christians are hell-fire bent on forcing their will and beliefs on
>> every single human being in the world ...

[ellipse mine; Doug almost never uses them!]
Then, here comes dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger):

> I think these statements denigrate Christians.  You say that "not all
> Christians are hateful and intolerant".  I think that statement tends
> to promote a bigoted stereotype that Christians are "hateful and 
> intolerant".  If you said "not all homosexuals are promiscuous" or
> "not all Jews are money-grubbers" then I think people would be outraged 
> by your remarks.  I find your remarks very offensive.   

Let's restore the _complete_ quotation, shall we?

>> ... (well, I know that it would be
>> considered *nice* if everybody were a Christian, but then, I'd like
>> everybody in the world to be Kate Bush and Happy Rhodes fans :-))

It sounds a little more good-natured now, doesn't it?  Can't you leave
statements alone, Doug?

>> I have been *very* angry at Christians lately, since I've become 
>> aware and concerned about the terrorists harassing health care workers,
>> and *especially* since the Republican convention. I've been bashing
>> Christians at every opportunity, and your posts have brought me back
>> to the realization that I have been unfair.

And of course, Doug, this changes the entire meaning of the quotation you
included in your article, doesn't it? 

>> My brother is a born-again Christian. He's somewhat lapsed, but still
>> holds the basic beliefs. He's a truck driver, so i don't talk to him
>> very often. That's been good, because if he'd been around within the
>> past few weeks, I'm sure I would have dumped all my anger on him.

>> Whenever I feel the urge to lash out at all Christians, I will think
>> "Steve" and "Cameron" and re-think what I'm thinking, writing, saying.

>> Thank you.

And thus, Vickie gracefully closes her encomium of two intelligent
participants in t.a who happen to be Christian.

So, um, Doug, who appointed you as Defender of the Faith, hmmmm?
-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Chaney pulls self up from Clefty's level
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 01:02:15 GMT

In article <l9kf2uINNg3u@news.bbn.com> levin@bbn.com writes:
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>|Your whole case is dust: I am known for bashing assholes like Kaufman and
>|Humphrey . . .
>
>No matter that all his bashing is accomplished with a feather.

Why would one sweep away dust with a sledgehammer? It only takes a
feather duster to sweep away the kind of pro-abort arguments that
exist around here. 

And that is quite enough bashing, compared to the mindless drivel
coming from Mark Irate Cough Man, PatricKKK Harumphrey, James
Keegmeister, Lefty and Astro Boy. 

To waste the hard artillery on these idiots would be like using a
steam engine to crack a nut. 


=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|                                                                           |
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
=============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: darkstar@u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann)
Subject: Re: abortifacients
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:44:57 GMT

Kathi Mills writes
> > Propeller Head (aka Dirigible Boy, complete with hot air) said:
> 
> 
> >Oh, and if the fetus does not have a brain, what makes them grow? They have
> >detected brainwaves and nervous responses to stimuli by 7 weeks. 
> 
> Hey, twit!  Do you even realize the absurdity in your contention that
> fetuses without brains do not grow, followed by the admission that fetuses
> do not have brain waves until 7 weeks of gestation?
> 
My very first exchanges with Mr. Chaney were over his contentions that he knew  
more about developmental biology than I do (irrespective of my biology degree,  
incidentally).  He made many statements which showed his ignorance quite well,  
but there was none quite so succinct as this.  Simply ingenious logic, eh?


Alden F.M. Hackmann                             University of Washington
darkstar@u.washington.edu                       Department of Pathology

"You can know, even for a moment, that it's your turn, 
 that you can walk with the power of a thousand generations"  - Bruce Cockburn
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33655 alt.abortion.inequity:3299
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 27 Aug 92 04:53:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Aug25.171409.12451@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.001742.3923@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug20.141415.3923@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>>>  Whether or not you are celibate isyour choice.  My point being that we
>>>  must begin to accept responsibility for our actions, even if that means 
>>>  accepting responsibility for the failure of contraception.  
>>
>>Please explain (without the use of truth by blatant assertion) why an
>>abortion is not a responsible response to an unwanted pregnancy.
>
>Turn it around.  Explain (without the use of any belief system) how an
>abortion is objectively a responsbile decision.
>
>Different belief systems, different beliefs (but not always).

I don't think it is an unreasonable request to ask that those
who are trying legislate what actions I may take with my own body
base that legislation on something more than "because I say so."
If you are not trying to enact legislation that would limit
the availability of abortion, than please ignore my request, for
I wouldn't dream of trying to play the role of Thought Police and
dictate what people must believe.
>
>>Sarah McCabe
>
>John
>stevens@uswest.com

Sarah McCabe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:14:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.195333.10364@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> Not only that, but if she didn't think she could deal with raising the
> child for that short of a time, I would offer to adopt the child myself.

Just out of curiosity, how may children have you and your
husband adopted as of this writing?

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Not bloody likely.  I couldn't find it in this mess.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:06:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.220041.15875@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>><1992Aug19.163139.22864@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) :
>Don't preach responsibility. I'd be willing we could dredge up quite a lot
>of irresponsible behavior in your past, just as we could do for everyone 
>else, including me.
>

And this is a good reason for acting irresponsibily?  Because we aren't
perfect, we should even try?

>Get real. I mean it. Not sarcastically either. You are quite naive if you
>think you can just tell people "hey, get your act together. Be responsible"
>It won't happen, hence, smell the coffee, dude, get real.

Hmmm, so maybe we should repeal all law, and stop expecting people to be
responsible, since it will never happen.

Get real.

>-- 
>David Knapp                                University of Colorado, Boulder

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 17:50:39 GMT



I'll thank Dennis (although he won't see it) for giving me
explicit instructions on how to enter his killfile.  

Some day, I hope, someone can explain to me why pro-force
liars are so obsessed with Becky Bell's death.  They might
also explain why we should accept the word of Willke, who
is certainly not a pathologist and never examined the body,
over the word of the coroner in the case.  

I have this awful feeling that Willke and his disciples would
like to have Ms. Bells' body exhumed in the hope that they
could convince yet another unscrupulous physician to lie
about the cause of her death. 

Attacking the character of dead women seems to give them
all great pleasure.

Susan,
who is still amused that "Feminists for Life" is 
represented solely by men on the net


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Another reason to vote for Bush
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:20:27 GMT

In article <_zty+!b@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> 
> >bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
> 
> >>In article <1992Aug21.214108.28288@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> >># In article <1992Aug16.002117.980@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> >># decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >># 
> >># > Rights in the United States are based on the COnstitution of the United
> >># > States.  This was not a democratically arrived at document, but the
> >># > product of rather an elite group of the landed gentry.  
> >># 
> >># That's funny, I always thought the preamble to the Constitution said
> >># "We, the people...", not "We, the elite group of landed gentry....". 
> 
> >>Neither did it say, ``We, the quorum of elected representatives
> >>necessary for ratification, ...''
> 
> >Nor did it say "...and having the necessary personal funds to make the trip
> >to Philladelphia and support ourselves during the convention..."
> 
> Well, ya knew it had to happen.
> 
> It's the Constitutional Cascade.

It's an institutional mass grave.

Dean Kaflowitz

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33832 alt.abortion.inequity:3314
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: 28 Aug 92 01:06:10 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug26.170931.13175@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug
Holtsinger) wrote:
> 
> If we can find a solution to the moderator/volume problems,
> then I plan on putting out a CVD. 

What'd _that_ be?  A Call for Venereal Disease? 

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33981 alt.politics.bush:3433 talk.politics.misc:42787
From: ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Genetic code != entire sum of the individual
Date: 30 Aug 92 05:01:31 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


In article <17mtmvINNear@agate.berkeley.edu>
martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
 
>In addition, the ENTIRE individual is defined at conception.  The mother's 
>traits and the father's traits combine to create a new DNA structure
>which equates to a new and unique human being.  Abort the unborn and
>you will never see that combination again.


   Mr. Guerrero, if you take DNA this seriously, you may wish to
consider environmental causes. When species go extinct, not only do
possible realizations of genetic roulette not happen, but entire sets of
traits are lost.  You may wish to consider that human population may
have some causal relationship with a recent acceleration in the
extinction rate.
   The lose of the ozone layer over t.a. is becoming worrisome, as fetal
idolatry mutates into genetic code idolatry. 

Michael Loomis
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34772 alt.abortion.inequity:3459
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:36:55 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <1992Sep01.191402.16457@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com write

>>(Abortion, by definition, is *not* murder, since murder refers to unlawful
>>killing, and abortion is legal.)

>Murder doe NOT just refer to unlawful killing, it also refers to unjust
>(immoral) killing.

Could you post a verifiable reference for this please. Murder is not
given any kind of "moral" definition in anything I have available. Just
legalities and slang.

>>And it's not enforcing beliefs, any more than the killing of cattle
>>being legal enforcing beliefs on those believe cattle to be holy.

>Unless it happens to be MY cow you are killing.

This would be illegal in that it would be stealing your cow, in one
form or another.

>Correct.  So what do you call it when a woman carrying my child kills it?
>I call it violating my rights by having her beliefs forced on me.

It is not your child until it is born. How do you feel if your "child" with
a woman you don't really care for (pretend a moment of weakness/confusion/
changing attitudes) miscarried? Do you weep for your "child"? Personally,
to answer your question, I would probably say good. Why? Because if
she didn't even talk to me about it first, that's probably the end of
the relationship, as she probably doesn't really care about me or the
relationship. It's a pretty good indicator, anyway.

>This is not emotional rhetoric.  It is truth.  Abortion is not just what
>is done to the mother, it is also what is done to the baby, and the
>father.

Sorry bub. Nothing is being done to the "father" as half the time the
"father" isn't around or aware of what he imposed on the woman. (Many
single women get abortions, remember? Of those that are married, I would
hope that they discuss it with their husbands.)

>If I am not having an abortion, then how come I'm suddenly no longer
>a father afterwards?

You weren't a father to begin with. Have you heard of a "father-to-be"?
That's *all* you are, nothing more. What about all those z/b's you might
have fathered that got flushed? (Remember Dr. Howard's statistics about
2/3's of all conceived z/b/e/f's not making it to term?) How do you
feel about those? As for the rest, what if the woman wanted your testicles
so that she could produce an offspring since none resulted from your
copulation, and she feels that she's been wronged and you didn't want
any? (Note, I know that this is ludicrous, it is being presented as 
a hypothetical argument equivalent <sort of> to the woman having to 
give up various portions of her body to another against her will.)

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33696 alt.flame:12363
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Summary: It's eerie, isn't it?
Date: 27 Aug 92 12:06:54 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Red River Surfers, Alexandria, La.

In article <1992Aug27.115244.6089@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>-> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
>-> > We don't take a hold of one of our own people,
>-> > like you did Siren, and pluck them, feather by
>-> > feather, until they decide to go away forever.
>
>chaneyhall flames siren who has been off the net for a
>month!!!!  what's next for you, chaneyhall? will you
>begin to flame the names listed in the obituaries?

It's uncanny how he's apparently adopted one of the favorite practices of
the departed DJR -- attack people he knows won't be around to defend
themselves...

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
                  COUGARS     TIGERS     RAVENS     HUSKIES
  OILERS     OWLS             *Any questions?*              ROCKETS     ASTROS
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Chaney ignores what pregnancy means (AGAIN)
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:26:07 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Aug24.232949.7951@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>At least, before Roe vs. Wade, they [fetii] were legal persons.

Uh huh.  It's time to play "substantiate that claim or admit that the 'facts'
I present are yanked out of my nether orifice."

>Could you show us one instance where one can stand up in court and say "I
>didn't want the child for xxxx reasons," and that be a defense against
>murder charges?

Chaney, you maroon.  Any born child can be GIVEN to another agency or person
for care.  Name me one instance where a woman can "give away" her non-viable
fetus.  Until you can, your argument has all the profundity of a cheap plastic
soap dish.

Ta ta.

--Teddi
-------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix02.ecs.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Cut to the Quick
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 04:34:34 GMT

GC.NBA@forsythe.stanford.edu (NARLEN) writes:

>Post people:

>...for those of you who support abortion: You are all _wrong_!

Thank you for this reminder that classes are beginning again
at colleges all across the country, bringing a whole new crop
of freshman into the GPA-killing world of usenet.

Do try to have an actual point the next time you decide to try
the posting software.

                         -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:26:20 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis) writes:

[...]

>In the meantime, I would ask anyone thinking about repling to Mr.
>Novak's post  to consider why they would oppose infanticide and would
>yet support a third trimester abortion as described in this post by Mr.
>Ron Bense with Ms. Suzanne Forgach playing the chorus.  In particular,
>why is it good to permit a newborn infant whose short life will be only
>a painful torment to live and to kill a similar third trimester fetus?
>The fetal idolators claim that abortion is painful to the fetus as a
>reason to oppose abortion.  Yet opposition to infanticide causes yet
>greater pain.

First, I don't think I've ever stated anything with regards to infanticide
in this forum, either for or against. I have stated that in *some* cases,
to let a person die is preferable and more humane than to force them
to live through heroic medical procedures (although why they're termed
'heroic' eludes me. Maybe to remove some of the stigma at the means used
to continue the life and cover its quality?). I've also stated that
euthanasia seems to me to be logically legal, as here someone doesn't
want to live, is in pain (we're not talking about suicide potentials
here) and will die shortly anyway. They just want to shorten the final
hours of their pain when it is no longer advantageous in their opinion
to be alive. Note here that it is the person who wishes to be dead,
not someone else wishing they were dead. This should also hold if the
person hands over this decision to another, as in a power of attorney.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Summary: This is funny
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:02:22 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Sep2.183409.25366@pony.Ingres.COM> dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick) writes:

#I missed out on what Mr. Nyikos said, but from this message alone, I cannot
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#come to the same conclusion that Mr. Nyikos is either a liar or a misogynist.

[text deleted]

#Mr. Nyiko's point was not that women such as the Florida physician's wife
#should be forced into abortion.  His arguement, whether a good one or not,

[more text deleted]

How is it that you know what Nyikos's point was, given that you
didn't read his article?

You'll have to drop in more often, Dick.  You're amusing.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Keywords: abortion, rape, sexual battery
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 06:30:08 GMT

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

>In my short time with talk.abortion, I have already seen how some
>pro-choicers are ready to label someone a misogynist or woman-hater
>simply because said person fits the "pro-life" label better than the
>"pro-choice" label.  

And many more wait to judge until they see actual evidence of it.
In most cases, it isn't long in coming.  With you, I saw it when
you said you might "allow" an abortion if the woman would otherwise
be "better off dead".  So if her quality of life was ONLY reduced by,
say, 90%, it seems it would be perfectly hunky-dory with you if
she gave up that 90% for some random (to you) fetus.

>	These people are barking up the wrong tree.  If they would only
>open their eyes a bit, they would see evidence of misogyny from some 
>of the very people they defend as caring about women.  

	[allegations of abuse deleted]

I hate to break it to you, Nyikos, but your little story here has
absolutely NO bearing on whether YOUR views are misogynistic.  I
believe the term is "red herring".

>Via the pro-life grapevine, I was put in touch with a truly dedicated
>pro-life feminist who said she would try to find out about subsequent
>developments in the case.  [She moved to Ft. Lauderdale after the arrest
>in question.]  What with Hurricane Andrew, the answers might take a 
>while in coming.

Ft. Lauderdale was virtually unaffected by the storm.  The worst
damage was in southwest Dade County, in the neighborhood where I
grew up and my mother (used to, until the storm) live.

>Peter Ny.

                      -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity