HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Ku Klux Klan Act
Keywords: KKK, Ku Klux Klan Act, Supreme Court
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 20:14:34 GMT

Letter to the editor, Chicago Tribune, Jan. 25

Criticism (and most media coverage) of the Supreme Court's decision
in the Operation Rescue case has missed the important point: Under
the court's decision, abortion clinics are entitled to exactly the 
same legal protections against trespass and violent protest as are
other controversial institutions in our society.

When animal rights protesters blockade or destroy the property of 
animal laboratories, homosexual activists disturb Roamn Catholic 
religious services, anti-apartheid protesters trespass on the property
of the South African embassy, the owners of those institutions are 
protected by state laws against trespass and other property crimes.
They are not entitled to federal court injunctions under the Ku Klux 
Klan Act, which was enacted for entirely different purposes.

Abortion clinics are entitled to the same protection of the law -- 
no less and no more. Indeed, it would violate important principles
of the 1st Amendment if the government were to punish political
protest against abortion more harshly than it punishes similar forms 
of protest directed at different causes.

The Supreme Court has not condoned violence or lawlessness. It has
simply ruled that the same law applies to all.

Michael W. McConnell
William B. Graham Professor of Law
University of Chicago Law School
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:09:31 GMT

<Jan22.051516.23966@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold) :
><1993Jan14.074343.13799@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) :
>|> <1993Jan9.063657.20201@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) :
>|> >                                                 There are plenty of
>|> >non-religious reasons available for being pro-life, so that no one need
>|> >lean on any mystic, unseen, unexplainable, religious idea to be so.
>|> >I'd say most prominent would be all the photographic, videographic, and
>|> >sonographic images now available to anyone brave enough to look.  What
>|> >they all show us is a child of great beauty and grace, the future of
>|> >the human race, something of of great value.
>|> 
>|> What those videos and sonograms show is a fetus which barely resembles a
>|> human being, let alone a child.  A fetus is an ugly thing, with veins
>|> and organs visible through the skin, a head much too large for it's body,
>|> webbed digits, eyes on the side of it's head (sealed shut), with a pulsing
>|> conduit of flesh sticking out of it's stomach.  Let's put it this way, if
>|> an adult walking down the street had even half these characteristics I
>|> doubt you'd be referring to them as "beautiful and graceful".
>
>	And because the unborn child, in your VERY humble opinion, is "ugly," it
>does not and should not have a right to life.  

Bzzt!  Wrong!  I was not attempting to assign life and death values based
on looks alone.  I was merely pointing out to Suzanne that a fetus is ugly
by almost any standard of physical beauty you care to name.

>                                               Gordon, in all this time, you
>haven't changed.  You still have that singular ability to unfailingly miss the
>point, to throw mud, to bring up red herring non-issues.  You're really a master,
>and your talent is wasted on t.a -- you ought to be making real money on
>Crossfire or something.

Thanks, I'm looking for a job right now.

>	Gordon, very old people are ugly in some people's MOST uninformed
>opinions.  That doesn't make them non-persons.  Some people think Jews are
>ugly; some people think Scots are ugly; some people think blacks are ugly;
>heck, some people even think Native Americans are ugly.  
>	Don't use such a pitiful argument again.

Yo Steve, check the top of this post again and you'll notice that Suzanne
was using appearances as a basis for her being pro-life.  She cites the 
"great beauty and grace" of a fetus as a reason for being pro-life.  She
is the one you should be reprimanding, not me.

But I doubt you'll respond to this post.  Many pro-lifers have been
ignoring my responses lately (Suzanne, Nyikos, Chaney).  I can only 
assume they have no argument.


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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57731 alt.politics.homosexuality:10218
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: O.R. protest against homosexuals on CSPAN
Date: 24 Jan 93 21:14:44 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1993Jan23.063725.3042@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article by mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price):
>> In forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> 
>>>A death months or years after diagnosis, with the opportunity for
>>>rethinking one's life and turning to Christ that that time allows,
>>>is definintely far more merciful than a sudden quick death without
>>>the opportunity to set one's house in order.
>> 
>>>We're all gonna die some day.  The only difference between an
>>>AIDS patient and a non-AIDS patient is that the AIDS patient must
>>>confront his/her mortality, while the rest of us may foolishly
>>>ignore ours at our own peril.
>> 
>>      Ohh, I see! It is Christian to _support_ the spread of AIDS. I'm
>> finally beginning to understand the Pope's attitude to condoms.

>Don't be ridiculous.  If everyone lived by what the Pope taught, AIDS
>would never have happened.  If everyone started tomorrow living by
>what the Pope teaches, AIDS would be stopped cold.

     How interesting.  There are apparently _NO_ marriages where one
partner (but not the other) is HIV+.  Obviously, if we all threw away
our condoms tomorrow, and lived what the Pope teaches, married women who
are HIV+ would not pass the infection on to their fetuses.  AIDS would
be stopped cold.
     BTW, what does the Pope teach on intravenous drug use? How does he
feel about surgery in the third world? What does he have against
dentists (Oh, I forgot, Kimberly Bergalis was deliberately infected
because she ticked "virgin" on her dental form).
 
>Abstinence or life long monogamy work.

    Why don't you tell that to the family of Ryan White?

>S. Forgach

                                                              mp
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Drieux, try decaf!
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.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 03:54:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.022729.15927@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>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?
>
>one who has not yet reached the age of consent is
>construed to be a 'minor' and you will notice that
>the construct of Gregory's post is in regards to
>prosecuting such 'minorities' as adults, NOT as CAUCASIANS!!!!
>
Which is why I phrased my response in a manner which left the way open
for correction on his part Drieux. had his word choice not been
ambiguous, I would have either ignored it (had it been clearly about
minors) or reacted more forcefully (had it been clearly racist).

>some days the urge to be PolitikallyKorrekt is just too
>irresistible, eh?

Is it? I really wouldn't know. It's not something I'm accused of very
often.

>sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
>and they may not be connected..... 

I've read enough of your articles to be absolutely *certain* that this
is true.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 22 Jan 1993 20:47:58 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn) says:

>The woman who is pregnant is unquestionably alive and has rights.
                                             ^^^^^
>Whether the fetus is human is a subject of endless debate--which
>shows no signs of ending any time soon.    ^^^^^^^
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

OOPS! Sorry....I was racing against the 5-minute-warning clock.  When I
said "alive," I meant "human." The other boo-boo is self-explanatory *blush*.          


-- 
___________________________________________________________________________
*Linda Zinn                         When you point a finger at someone,     *
*au500@cleveland.freenet.edu        you're pointing three back at yourself! *
**********Wanted: Books by E.D.E.N. Southworth; cattail dinnerware***********
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: The emptiness of PHoneys mind, Part 12,000
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.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 23:21:22 GMT

In article <nyikos.727636098@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Dec05.075459.147819@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>>In <1992Dec4.221204.8117@midway.uchicago.edu>
>>eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>>>In article <Byq22y.y0@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
>>>rharlan@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Rick Harlan) writes:
>>>
>>>>      We know now that the fetus is aware of his/her surroundings
>>>>from a very early age, and reacts noticably to intrusions in its
>>>>environment (such as from a doctor's instruments).
>>>
>>>Source, please?
>
>>Probably the old fluid dynamics idiocy - poke something at an object in
>>a fluid (be it a fetus or a ping-pong ball) and it will move away from
>>the probe.
>
>Tell that to the pediatricians and surgeons who now consider it unethical
>to operate on a viable fetus in the womb without anestetizing it.
>
Can you cite a source that claims this to be a widespread feeling? Or
is this just like DODie citing an example of a couple of individuals
and claiming they representthe entire medical profession?

>If nothing else, there is the sheer mechanics of the situation: unless the 
>fetus is anesthetized, it will very actively struggle.
>
As has been pointed out, so will an earthworm. The individuals
invovled with intrautermine surgery that I have spoken to use
anesthesia for this reason, and for the peace of mind of the parents.

>This is just the latest example of our fractured view on fetuses: a 
>wanted unborn child is treated like a normal patient, while an unwanted
>one is compared to a ping-pong ball.
>
No PHoney, a wanted fetus is treated in such a manner as wil best
ensure that it may eventually become a patient. If you check charts,
you will never find the fetus refered to as the patient, even during
intrauterine surgery.

>For more on the subject, see _Beyond Abortion_, by Suzanne Rini,
>especially the chapter, "Abandonment of the Fetus as Patient and Client."
>
Anotehr biased source. Is this the same person who griped about
pro-choicers citing statistics that might be remotely related to the
Gutmacher institute? Can you say 'hypocrite'? I knew that you could...

>Terrible. Close. Mind.
>
As fine a description of your attitudes as I have ever seen PHoney.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Does James Keegan support Cochran's mandatory sterilization program?
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:16:45 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>> 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 don't know whether to be amused that you are so incredibly stupid,
or insulted that you think I must be so incredibly stupid.  At the
moment, I'm inclined towrds the former.  So ...

If you (D.H.) would like to ban all abortions, is that not equivalent
to a desire to force women to remain pregnant?

>I do know of people who oppose killing human beings, or allowing 
>them to die. 

And I suppose you're one of them?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: Re: Something's Missing!?
Originator: jjprice@c00075-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:49:23 GMT


In article <1993Jan20.201852.25441@pwcs.stpaul.gov>, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

|>cs225b26@eng-nxt09.cso.uiuc.edu (cs225 student) writes:
|>
|>[--fire and brimstone sermon deleted--]
|>
|>May I ask a question, as one God-fearing Christian to another?
|>
|>Is God playing some kind of "gotcha"-type game?  I mean, if
|>getting or administering an abortion merited eternal damnation,
|>don't you think God would have explicitly warned us?
|>
|>Seriously, I believe that abortion, like most actions, is morally
|>neutral.  It is the context (something many of us are guilty of
|>ignoring) that determines the rightness or wrongness of the action.
|>
God has warned us of many things but we still ingnore him. What makes
you so sure that he has not warned us against abortion?(not saying that
he has its just that I haven't read to much of the Bible yet but I feel
that abortion is something he would not support).
-- 
-Jeffrey Price
_____________________________________________________________________
| "When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were |
|  able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not  |
|  to go also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with  |
|  him to the station?"                                              |
| "OBJECTION: That question ought to be taken out and shot!!"        |
|____________________________________________________________________|
From: allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:40:35 GMT

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>These are clear violations of state laws, and are subject to trial
>in state courts.  Why bring in the federal government?

And I believe this is exactly what the Supreme Court decision pertains
to: that the States should handle these matters, not the federal government.

allen
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Mark Purdurs, waiting for a response!!!
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:45:10 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

Mark,

    Well, you've had about 12 days to think over the z/e/f post. I still
haven't seen a response. Do you need a repost, or do you need more time
to think about your reply?

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 00:21:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan07.183638.17715@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1993Jan7.143415.29717@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.012145.13731@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>In <C01Mxq.1I5@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>>>>
>>>>This is silly, of course.  Pro-abortion means obviously you favor its
>>>>availability.
>>>
>>>No, "pro-choice" means you favor the availability of that choice;
>>>"pro-abortion" means you favor the choice itself.
>>
>>Hmmm... Is this the same Larry Margolis who insisted to me that arguing for
>>the AVAILABILITY (via popular concensus) of some abortion restrictions was
>>equivalent to arguing for those restrictions themselves?
>
>No, this is the Larry Margolis who accepted your statement that you were
>not in *favor* of the restrictions, and who proposed "arguing on behalf
>of abortion restrictions" as a description of what you do, instead of
>"arguing for abortion restrictions".  

O Thank You, Great Massa, for your generous and big-hearted concession that
I merely argue "on behalf of" abortion restrictions. Can I lick your boots
and eat some of the crumbs from your dinner table too?

>I did say that sometimes the
>*arguments* are indistinguishable, but that's quite different from
>saying that the two positions are equivalent.

You merely lack the presence of mind to distinguish my arguments from 
pro-life arguments. And, unwilling to accept your own limitations, you prefer 
to blame me for the apparent similarities...

								- Kevin
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Date: 28 Jan 93 14:32:56 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

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

->  I "accused" you [...]

don't you think you should be careful with
accusations until you clear up all the wrong ones
you've made?
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57969 alt.birthright:588
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:43:51 GMT

In article <C19Gyv.5tx.1@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> +>>The incidence of illegal abortion in 1860 has NOTHING to do with the 
>> +>>ruling in Roe v Wade in 1973.  Comparing medical practices across this 
>> +>>vast time is like comparing a slide rule with a supercomputer.  
>
>> +>Actually, it has something to do with it.  Unlike you, Blackmun researched
>> +>the issue before stating his opinion.  You might try learning something
>> +>about the issue.
>>
>>       <C0wM37.KE2.1@cs.cmu.edu>
>>        garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
>>
>> And now we see Ms. Garvin furiously back-pedaling from that suggestion.

> No, I've yet to backpedal from the suggestion that Justice
> Blackmun did research into the abortion issue.  

That's not the suggestion I'm referring to, Garvin.  You made
the suggestion that the *incidence* of illegal abortion in 1860 
has "something to do with" the ruling in Roe v. Wade in 1973.
Just what is the exact relationship, Garvin?   Remember, we're 
not talking about the dangers of illegal abortion, as Kaflowitz
has suggested, but rather the *incidence* of illegal abortion. 
Look at the subject line if you forget.


>Susan


   "I'm only really good at judging colored semen contests, anyway."

                                       sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)

Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Chris Lyman's failed reading comprehension (Was: Statistics)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:25:56 GMT

In <1jn37dINN7jk@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <nyikos.727639662@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>>Btw, your apology to Ms. Regard is long overdue.

>>I don't apologize for things I don't do.

>Scuse, please, but did you or did you not link my name with 
>"forgery" in a public posting to this net?

>Did you or did you not create the following heading?:

>Subject: A forgery by Adrienne Regard?!?!?!?!? (was: Stipu..)
>Distribution: world
>References: <Bw42t5.8L5@cs.psu.edu> <1bhi7lINN9bu@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> <nyikos.719283669@milo.math.scarolina.edu> <1c197pINN2ve@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>

>This is and remains the net.abuse in question.  You, through your own
>stupidity, publicly named me a forger.  I don't appreciate it.  You were
>wrong, and you owe me an apology.

Do you know what ? means?  Note that the string both begins and ends in 
it.

>You haven't had the character to do so, so far.  Gee, what *was* the date
>of that heading, anyway?......

A bit later than your publicly naming me ignorant of attributions, as a 
result of which thousands of lines of bandwidth have been wasted.  I told
you, I am waiting for you to apologize for that.  If you do not, I will
apologize after a fashion for linking your name with forgery, but you will
like it a lot less than what I'd come up with if you do apologize.

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hammond@stimpy.serum.kodak.com (Kevin Hammond (x37516))
Subject: Want to adopt
Summary: We want to adopt a baby 
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:42:20 GMT

I realize that this may not be the appropriate forum for this post but here
goes...

My wife and I would like to adopt a baby.  We are in our very early 30s and
are financially secure.  If you know of someone that is pregnant and would
like to consider adoption, please put them in touch with us.  Of course 
we would pay all of their legal and medical expenses.

Thank you,
Kevin & Lynn 
Call Collect: (716) 723-3585

-- 
--
Kevin Hammond
work phone: 253-7516 email: hammond@serum.kodak.com
home phone: 723-1295
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal