HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you
Date: 5 Apr 92 09:03:23 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

>In <1992Apr5.070049.2778@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@quads.uchicago.edu
 (nora gayle rivkis) writes:

>>In article <1992Apr3.160149.10119@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> 
  mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:

>>Suppose I make an analogy that Pro-Choice folks are indeed NAZIS because 
>>aborting fetuses is the same as the extermination of the Jews. Would I be
>>right in making such a statement? NO! Of course I would be wrong! However,
>>my reasoning behind this is just the same as yours. Please understand dude.

>I understand your point, Mikeey, and it's fine as far as it goes, but please
>try to avoid making this kind of argument even in a jesting analogy. There
>are some of us it hurts needlessly, and a lot more who it endangers even
>beyond their current danger level. Try to find some other way.

>>						Mikeey

>	-Nora


>-- 
>Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.

 	Hmmm... okay Nora! Sorry about that "Nazi analogy". However, please
note that I tried several attempts earlier (I think it was 3 times) to talk
some logic to this person. After trying to talk some sense to the man a few
times and seeing him totally disregarding anything anyone said I kind of blew
my top. I was a bit "upset" by his generalization. Hope you understand! :)

						Mikeey
				    mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu

     
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: On Quitting being Sexually Active
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:06:19 CDT


In article <1992Apr14.024231.2198@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article by mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis):
> > 
> > Funny....ever met someone who was sexually active, then decided to
> > be abstinent till marriage or whatever???
> 
> Yes, as a matter of fact, I know at _least_ one! :-)  A very dear
> friend of mind did exactly that.  One of the sweetest guys I know
> too.  (And I do not even mean anyone I am married to either.)
> 
> > Nope, doesn't happen.
> 
> Mr. Christian, of course it does!  Ask around your own friends, and at
> least one of them will surprise you.  Otherwise, what Jesus said to
> the adulteress, "Go and from now on avoid this sin" would have been
> just wasted breath, and of course Jesus never said anything that was
> 'useless'.

And Jesus never said anything against abortion either.

> > Even the great Morrissey has had a few flings........
> 
> Who?   Anyway, how about St. Augustine himself?
> 
> Suzanne.

Obviously not a Smiths fan...

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Consistency on the Email Privacy Issue?
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:51:37 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >-> keegan@windsurf.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> >-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >-> >-> Why is your email "private", but Welch's isn't?
-> >-> >
-> >-> >who said that mine was (other than you)? 
-> >-> 
-> >-> The mail which Kellmeyer posted was "private", was it not?
-> >-> If not, why did you title your article "Kellmeyer posts
-> >-> private email"???
-> >
-> >you've heard of mailing lists, haven't you? (that was in the
-> >oist you replied to [see below] but you seem to have not
-> >grasped it's implications).

-> >here it is. see?

-> >-> >you have heard of mailing lists haven't you?
-> 
-> >-> You mean VOLUNTARY WAIVERS of email privacy? 

-> >no. i meant mailing lists, as i wrote. if i had meant to
-> >write "VOLUNTARY WAIVERS," i would have written VOLUNTARY
-> >WAIVERS. that trait is no doubt so for all of the people who
-> >write things which you rewrite.

-> >but, as you often have trouble grasping concepts, i'll help
-> >you with this one. the descriptive word "private" which
-> >troubles you so was attached to email to distinguish that
-> >email from email taken from a mailing list.

-> >do you now understand?

-> So your assertion is that Steven Kellmeyer is a mailing list,
-> right?

is it? where do you see that?

is this one of those times when you screw up and make a fool of
yourself and just don't know what to say?

        'Mr. Darcy may I suggest that you enroll yourself
        posthaste in a remedial english programme, your lack of
        reading comprehension is astounding.  However, until you
        are able to secure such a class, I recommend that in the
        future you read very slowly, saying each word out loud as
        you come to it.  It is possible that this method will
        help to override your megalomaniacal, paranoid, "there's
        a sychophant behind every bush", thought process and
        maybe, just maybe, you will stop presenting yourself as
        such a complete and utter imbecile.'
				Linda Birmingham
				<91147.150725ADMN8647@Ryerson.CA>



--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: SO.....it's not a child.....
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:41:50 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.221818.18249@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>>To me, that means living.
>
>>So what?
>
>The fetus is also classified as homo sapien sapien. Thus, to 
>end the existence of a living homo sapien sapien has been 
>known up till know as Murder. That's what...
No, to illegally end the existence of a living human is called
murder. To legally do so is not. Abortion is legal.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:35:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr9.183512.11815
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


   I have recently seen posts urging us to find a middle ground on
the issue of abortion.  The anti-abortion side seeks to pass laws
that would prohibit a woman's choice.  How on earth could there be
a middle ground between those that are for choice, and those that are
against choice?
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:47:32 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <17610@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>In <1992Apr4.225950.26567@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e eliza
>>beth bartley) writes:

>>>In article <1992Apr3.214523.25335@cs.dal.ca>
>>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:


>>   Oh, jeeez, I know that. That is my entire point. The emphasis wthin
>>society is that sex is for pleasure, not reproduction. I am aware of that,
>>and embarassed by it as well. Although the two should go hand in hand,
>>it appears that the fetus, a sentient being or not, is the victim.

>Embarassed??? Why? Leads me to wonder if you've ever had sex, or if
>you are so inhibited by insecurity that you couldn't enjoy it. Have
>you ever wondered why humans are the only species on earth that copulate
>when they wish, instead of when nature dictates? Because it is pleasurable.

   I am embarassed not for myself but society. Sex has been lowered
to an ACT. Not a hinge of a relationship, not the means to a child,
not even a shred of responsibility. The end result, the child has
lost priority and is often forgotten. That's what having sex is
for dude. The fact that it feels good is a bonus... In any case,
between beer commercials and your post, you have proved my
point wonderfully. If I don't have sex, I"m insecure. Nice. I'll 
have you know that abstaining from premarital sex is a conscious
and difficult decision. It's something I"m proud of, and I'm not going
to be offended by your attempt to mock my practices. 
   You know why sex is "pleasurable" as you so adeptly summarized it?
Because if it wasn't, our population would be a bit of a problem. However,
mother nature hasn't really allowed for Trojan condoms and abortions...
Heck, we humans can't just be content with battling the hell out of other
species can we? No, we've had to take on our own kind too... Pathetic.
And I'm going to try not to be rude, but don't you EVER treat abstinence
as an insult again. Lemme guess - you obviously didn't wait till marriage
for sex, but do you wait till Christmas to open your presents? There's
a time and a place for everything, and promiscuity is sure presenting
us with a hell of a problem now isn't it?
   Incedentally, I don't think there is a shred of insecurity in me.
However, you and your mentality telling people "if you dont' have sex,
you ain't normal" has gotta go buddy. You keep telling yourself you're
macho. I don't wanna hear about it.
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: A rather peculiar letter.
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 00:59:05 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.000230.2524@leland.Stanford.EDU> 
             farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>mrharri@jake.cc.wayne.edu (Marissa Harrison) writes:
>>My idea of a compromise:
>>
>>	(1) Legal abortion to 14 weeks.

> I'll go along with this compromise once you show me how not allowing
> an abortion after 14 weeks allows "the individual (to) have the
> ultimate say so."
>
> If you think you have the right to buy a car, but I cap the price at
> $14K, are you free to exercise your right to buy a car?

How can you possibly compare abortion with buying a car?
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject:  Still new to the bible...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 00:35:39 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

] In <1992Apr8.131953.27472@acd4.acd.com> wdo@IEDV4.acd.com ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  ) writes:
] 
] >In <1992Mar23.193446.5347@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com 
] >   (drieux, just drieux) explains to Joy Haftel: >
] 
] 
] Okay, I can handle this one rather easily. Drieux,... no, I don't like
] Drieux, it's too hard to spell. I'll call you Bob. Now Bob, I assure

1. Obviously still refering to Saul of Tarsus? or what?
to pronounce drieux, it rhyms with mieux....

]    The bible tells us:
] 1) life in all forms is sacred
] 2) thou shalt not kill but to defend your life or your neighbours from
]    certain death

1. still waiting to see why you are AntiVet as well as antiChristian.

2. where do you get this 'thou shall not kill' from????
First Gospel of the SwissCheese?

] 3) Judge not lest ye be judged

	lest ye be judged by the same judgement by which you
	judge others....

if you were interested in making a citation from the bible
and not merely trying to lambast christianity.

] 4) man must be innocent until proven guilty

Wherein does it say that?

] Now, how do these biblical message relate to abortion?
] 1) Christians believe the fetus is life. Will be, has been, and IS.

1. where does the bible say this?

] 2) No Woman or Man cannot kill a fetus because it jeopardizes his
] financial, social or moral standing in society. Only to defend
] his/her own LIFE. 

2. where does it say this?


Given that you have already Blown up enough of the 
scriptures to this point, there is little point in
dealing with any of the rest.

Please Decide whether or not you Really HATE GOD, and
thus find is acceptable to twist the bible to what ever
perverse ends you seem to enjoy.

Then Seek the Forgiveness of God for your Attacks on the
Bible!!! REPENT of YOUR SIN and BE SAVED!!!!!


ciao
drieux


-- 
EOT 
No More Written InPut 
Why are you Looking Here?
From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 13 Apr 92 04:34:13 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
>In article <1992Apr07.065931.7912@liebe.uucp>, Kevin Brawley writes:
>|But you people who promote child murders should keep this in mind:
>
>What is it with the name "Kevin"?  I haven't seen a
>sensible, coherent poster with that name in years.

    CJ, I'm hurt. Deeply hurt.

    {Assume Southern revivalist twang} AND I SAY TO YOU, THAT THERE ARE
PEOPLE WHO WOULD PAINT WITH BROAD STROKES!! Yea, there are those who would
classify, I say classify, a mere name as a SIGN of moral decrepitude, a
SIGN of personal decay and worthlessness. SHAME, I say SHAME on them, for
this is an easy SLIDE into the degeneracy of classifying people by their
very INITIALS, which we KNOW is evil in its PUREST form...

    Then again, you could be right - I may just be incoherent in my
posting mayahbonaga ibibbooboo stylelelelemango bip...

    And here I thought those drugs were helping matters.

                                                        kwr

Internet: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- proud ex-boyfriend of Alison Colman)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: _W_A_C_D_T_F, Washington, D.C.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 07:01:32 GMT

From the Gospel of: <1992Apr13.201033.10009@noao.edu>
According to:       forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)

>>> = Joy Haftel
>>  = Alison Rebecca Colman
 
>>>I think it is better to be alive.
>> 
>> How do you know?
>
>Because the fact that we're ALL going to die someday is just that - A FACT.

This proves nothing.  The fact that we are all going to die some day hardly
shows that being alive is always better than not being alive.

>Therefore, if you die or are killed _young_, you definitely DO LOSE something -
>namely the rest of your natural life that would otherwise have been yours.

Okay, so I've lost something.  That *still* doesn't prove that it's
*necessarily* better to be alive.

Though Alison's question appears to be a simple one, it is not - how DO you
know that it is better to be alive?
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
                                               \
"Starvation does not cause death."                         -- Kevin Welch
"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts."         -- Kevin Welch
"[it's] up to you to disprove [God's] [existence]."        -- Mark Gaylord
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: The Pope is coming! The Pope is coming!
Summary: Matthew makes a total fool of himself....
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:50:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.033005.14103@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>
>In a previous article, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) says:
>
>>In article <1992Apr15.012228.6818@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sure, Steve.  Just like your church minded its own business during the
>>>>Spanish Inquisition...got any more fairy tales for us?
>>>and HOW many Christians were killed by non-Christian Romans and all
>>>those crazy Ostrogoths, and Visigoths, and Vandals? ( I love those names!!)
>>You might be interested to know that the Goths were generally
>>Arian Christians.
>>
>
>Sorry my friend.....not when they invaded back in the 400s AD.
Actually, completely untrue.

>The heretical movement you are talking about didn't come around
>until Charlemagne's time.
Allow me to refer you to Henry Chadwick's "A History of the
Early Church."
On page 124: "Not until about 318-320 were there signs that
Arius's orthodoxy were highly questionable."
On page 133.
"The Arian controversy after the council of Nicaea[his spelling]
may be divided into three stages; the first down to the death of
Constantine(22 May 337), the second from the accession of the
sons of Constantine to the death of Constantius II(361),
and the third from the accession of Julian to the suppression
of Arianism under Theodosius I(381)."
On page 248
"Many of the Goths, however, were converted in the fourth century
not to orthodoxy but to Arianism by Ulfila."
And on page 249
"But the fact that the barbarian's form of Christianity was
mainly Arian was crucial. It meant that their attacks on the
empire strongly reinforced the identification of the
Catholics with the Roman imperial ideal."

Had enough?
Just for fun, can you even name the main issue in the Arian
controversy? Arius's main opponent? In the future, I suggest
you keep your mouth shut when you don't know what you're
talking about.

>Take a better history class.
It was obviously better than the one you took.
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Sorry, did I miss anything?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:45:36 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.191008.27488@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.190634.25027@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >Maybe you guys could form a club or something?
> Yeah, me Ronald, Larry, and DJR.
> -Ekr

I was trying to help you, Eric.  But if you include DJR, then not only
can you form a club for guys without girlfriends, but if any potential
girlfriends find out about the association, you'll never get out of
the club.

I thought the point was that you guys want girlfriends?

Dean Kaflowitz
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Returning to the matter of Slavery
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 21:42:57 GMT

rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

] In article <1992Apr6.005211.5226@wam.umd.edu> spinoza@next06wor.wam.umd.edu (Prince Lev of the Domovoi) writes:
] 
] >While this is true, does it not say somewhere in the Creed something about  
] >obeying the laws of the country in which one dwells? I'm pretty sure this  
] >is custom among the Jewish community, 
] 
] It's not only custom, it's law; I believe Talmudic. If there is no
] direct conflict between Jewish law and the national law of the country
] you're in, you have to obey both. (If there *is* a conflict, you're
] supposed to break the national law, but then again, historically if 
] there is a conflict in a lot of nations, you'd be liable to run into 
] pikkuach nefesh and end up obeying the national law anyway.)

Thank You for the clarification, Postfacto, the problem
remains that with the outlawing of Slavery, it became clear
that the USA was violating what the Bible Allowed.

thus logically if we are to argue for the 'DeclineOfMoralStandards'
and the concomitant TurningAwayFromTheOneTrueChristianTruth, it is
not at Roe v. Wade, but most obviously when this country outlawed
slavery.....

ciao
drieux

ps: nora, lev is potentially also referring to the matter of
Rom 13:1, but we will concede him his limited understanding
of what the goyim call new testament theology....


-- 
EOT 
No More Written InPut 
Why are you Looking Here?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Doug on the Sig (formerly: Some Park Service Estimates)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 17:26:24 GMT

dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1992Apr12.184442.8836@wam.umd.edu> 
>   judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- go ahead & split, mr amoeba man) writes:

>>>>"Birth is an event, not an action taken by the mother."    

>>> As I told Ms. McCabe, a mother cannot normally act to cause birth to 
>>> happen, birth is an event that happens to her. Birth can be induced with 
>>> drugs, but that's not what I was referring to. Please extend me the same 
>>> courtesy that I give to you by not quoting me out of context.  

>> I understand what you're saying, but the tone of your quote nonetheless
>> serves to degrade what a woman goes through during pregnancy.  That is
>> why it's in my .sig.  

>I don't understand how my remark serves to degrade what a woman goes 
>through during pregnancy. I sincerely apologize if my remark offended you,
>or anyone else. Can you please explain it to me? 

I wouldn't say that I was really offended because I see idiotic statements
here (usually about pregnancy, by men) on a daily basis.  If I were to
take your remark seriously then yes, I suppose I could be highly offended
by it.

The casusal remark that birth is an event, number 1, serves to trivialize
the fact that it can often be as long as days, is usually extremely
painful, and sometimes results in death.  The word "event" brings up
mental images of something that "just happens".  Birth does not "just
happen" by any stretch of the imagination.  It almost always _requires_
a great deal of physical activity on the part of the mother to bring
it about.  In times past when there were few methods available to help,
women often died in the process when they reached the point where they
were no longer able to take such actions.

Secondly, your contention that it is "not an action taken by the 
mother" is simply wrong.  Even if you are referring to the onset of
labor, as I believe you said in another post, there are many actions
that a pregnant woman can take to bring about the onset of labor.
Many handbooks on "natural childbirth" will refer to some of these
methods.  My mother-in-law says she brought on labor in each of her
threee pregnancies, all born early.  And if you were in fact referring
to the birth process, I have already covered that.

>> Don't worry about it - no one reads my posts anyway. <growl>

>I do not wish to be grouped together with Mr. Welch or Mr. Gaylord
>in your sig, nor do I wish to be quoted out of context. Can you  
>please extend to me the same courtsey that I give to you by not quoting 
>me out of context? 

As I recall, the sentence was originally alone in your post, and not
further explained.  Even though it was a response to something else,
I have great difficulty in seeing how you claim you were quoted out
of context.

                        -rocker

Now HERE'S a quote out of context:

	"Jerry Brown is right."
	-Patrick Buchanan on "Nightline"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion