HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: What *is* Homophobia (formerly: SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS...)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:26:20 GMT

> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> = (Tim Pierce):
>>> = (Andrew Fusco) writes:

>>>Those heterosexual couples would never have contracted AIDS if they had
>>>remained monogamous. Contraceptives alone won't stop AIDS.
>>>See what a lack of monogamy leads to, you mean.

>> Either monogamy or contraception will halt the spread of AIDS.

>I find it pretty strange to see people advocating something designed for
>something totally unrelated -- birth control --, as a method of desease
>control!

"Suzanne, you ignorant slut": condoms were designed to help prevent the
spread of diseases, in *addition* to birth control, and have been so
labelled since I was a teen mumble-mumble years ago.

>Don'tcha get it?  Condoms were _never_designed_ to stop a virus millions of
>times smaller than a sperm.    

Condoms _are_designed_ that way now.  As all would know if crackpots
like you hadn't been keeping commercials for them off the airwaves.  

You seem...AFRAID to help out those that don't follow your sexual mores.
Wouldn't Jesus be *pissed* at your unchristian attitude?  Didn't he say
something about "throwing the first stone"?  Did he ever scream and rant
like you do re: monogamy?  Christians should be furious with an imposter
like you.  And since you are NOT a real christian, just what the hell are
your actual beliefs?

>WhatEVER gives you the idea that it would??

Of course, it CAN.  No, it's not foolproof.  Neither is NFP.  But if it can
help save lives, what the fuck is your objection?  ...Other than being the
typical hate-spewing "christian" liar you always are, that is.

>> People aren't monogamous.  Welcome to the real world.

>Many people aren't very smart either.

You prove that to us every day.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Leave of Absence
From: yoders@wittenberg.edu
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:20:19 -0400
Organization: Wittenberg University

Hi all,

	I apologize to anyone that may have posted anything regarding one of my
posts.  I have had no time to look at t.a. until now.  Unfortunately, this will
likely be the last opportunity I have for several weeks.  If anyone was trying
to get in touch with me about anything (even if it was just to call me an
asshole), feel free to E-Mail me.  Until things lighten up here at work, I will
be unable to read t.a.

Kevin Yoders
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Anti-stalking laws?
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 14:37:45 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.085622.10954@chinet.chi.il.us> 
katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:

> My position on abortion has evolved over years with lots of rational,
> and sometimes, irrational, thought involved. Emotions and philosophical
> beliefs have also entered into the equation. My position on the Pro-Fetus
> zealots came about after one afternoon 
> [.. rest deleted ..]

You didn't really answer my questions. You started out explaining 
how you arrived at your position, but you didn't go into much detail.
The rest of your post was not relevant to my questions. 

I'll ask again: 

Is your position on abortion derived in part from the actions of a 
few radicals? If so, do you think that's a valid reason for holding
a particular position on abortion?

Don't feel obligated to repeat your description of the "zealots".
I'm far more interested in your opinion on abortion than your opinion
of the "zealots" that you have encountered.

>Vickie


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:19:12 GMT

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>In article <1992Jul20.192606.14167@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu 
>(Gregory S Clausen) writes:

>}Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.

>I thought we went over this before.  In the majority of abortions, 
>there isn't even a "heart" to stop beating.  

>I am a bit disgusted by people who repeatedly make statements they
>know to be incorrect.  Unless, of course, they are too stupid to
>do anything else, in which case I pity them.  What should it be,
>Mr. Clausen, disgust or pity?

I'm sorry, Galen, but you are unequivocally wrong.  The heartbeat is
quite well-established and pumping blood through the circulatory 
system by day thirty after conception, thank you.  Abortions are not
performed until the sixth week after conception (that's Day Forty-Two
for you folks in Rio Linda) since any earlier attempts greatly 
increase the possibility of perforating the uterus.  So surgical abortion
does "stop a beating heart".

>--
>       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
>     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
>  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under

Steve Kellmeyer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Minor Theological question for the UnixForChristGang
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 03:23:42 GMT

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
] 
] 	Getting oneself neutered would be an even better solution. No
] willpower necessary. Jesus Christ himself recommended it -- read
] Matthew 19:12 on how there are eunuchs who have made themselves
] eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.
] 
] /Loren


Minor concern here then,

since the bible Says it,
do you believe it?

And if so, have you followed this command?

Or are you just another of the SwissCheeseTheologians
who pick and choose their theology as their Idolatry leads them....


ciao
drieux


ps: why is it they always find the useful scriptures,
and then never follow them....

pps: for the slow of reasoning, if the sole purpose of
heteroSexuality is replication.... then what does this
scripture have to suggest about that?????


ppps: if one is following this text, and can no longer
replicate, is one still a heterosexual????



-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: SOME USEFUL STATISTICS
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:35:37 GMT


mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

>In article <!mvxtjk@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>> 
>> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
>> 
>>>The U.S. death rate for the unborn CHILD is ~100% in all abortions
>>>recorded. 
>> 
>> This statement is not correct.

>Sure it is, he said approximately 100%.  The accuracy depends entirely
>on the number of significant figures he was thinking of.

McBean, I go to an engineering school.  Try coming here and taking
a test and writing ~ in front of all your answers.  Try defending
yourself by saying "Hey, you didn't specify the number of significant
figures!"  You might give the prof a good laugh, but you'd still
fail.

Franklin's statement is just inaccurate, sloppy math.

>Brian McBean  

                    -rocker
                     are you one of those liberal arts majors?

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29554 alt.birthright:161 alt.abortion.inequity:2751
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:34:59 GMT
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.

<1992Jul29.152325.6495@jet.uk> (Stephen R Cooper) writes:
>>> 9) I don't believe abortion is kiiling.

<1992Jul29.161308.15696@wuecl.wustl.edu> (Don Porter) writes:
>> I'm curious what strange definitions of "abortion" and "killing"
>> you use to support this belief....

<1992Jul30.015254.16282@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> (David Knapp) writes:
> 'Scuse me while I jump in here but, yes, an abortion kills a fetus. 
> Removing a wart kills a wart, and taking penicillin kills chlamidia.

Exactly.  Thank you for amplifying my point.

> Killing as used  in 9) above is not used in the context you put it in.

It appears I removed too much context in my followup.  The original
context was a list of activities which involve killing and the
supposedly contradictory positions on them held by people who
are pro-choice.  The activities included war, capital punishment,
animal testing, and hunting.  Any definition of "killing" broad
enough to cover all these is broad enough to cover abortion.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Bush's mom
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:48:40 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

>In article <1992Jul21.151223.874@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>>
>>...
>>This lead me to think.  We all know about Bush flip-flop
>>on abortion in 1980 (when picked as Reagan's VP).  We've 
>...

>Why is it one is said to 'flip-flop' when they change their
>mind?????????????

>If one has new found evidence/convictions, why is is so bad 
>(or at least played up as being so bad) to change to a new position?
>Wouldn't you do the same or are you not open to new information?

Richard...

  Bush's 'conversion' was purely political.  He was pro-choice when running
in the '80 primary, and made the change ONLY when selected for Veep by
Reagan.  Such a conversion can hardly be shown to be based on a change of
convictions.

Bush has already admitted his willingness to do *whatever it takes* to get
elected.  It would appear that in 1980 he decided to do whatever it took to
get on the ballot with Reagan.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: One sure way to prevent a teen abortion? (was Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:38:19 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

> Some parents have VERY strong feelings about their daughters not
> having abortions. 
> Some parents resort to illegal means by issuing threats.

Like, "If I ever find out that you're pregnant, I'll kill you?"
A kinder, gentler enforcement of wholesome traditional family
values, wouldn't you say? 

> But what if they resorted to legal means to circumvent the pro-choice
> movement's undying quest to nullify parental authority? 

> Why, a parent could, upon being told that their daughter is pregnant,
> threaten to drop her off at a home for unwanted children if she has an
> abortion.

Some parents threaten their teenage children with foster homes for all
kinds of transgressions, some of them extremely trivial.  Actually,
don't you think those kinds of threats are self-defeating?

> That's no slight inconvenience for anyone; the daughter would be
> devastated, and she would have no legal action against her parents.
> She'd just be out of a home.

And the parents end up looking like idiots.

> And where would the NARAL & Planned Parenthood be, then? They won't
> house her. She'll be just an insignificant casualty in this war. Or,
> as they say, "Another one bites the dust."

Blaming the NARAL & Planned Parenthood for the actions of a few stupid
parents makes about as much sense as blaming the National Football League
for the increase in cheap shots in hockey games.  But when has making
sense ever been your strong suit?

> But the parents would strike the last and final blow in the issue, and
> the next daughter would more likely either not get pregnant or not
> even consider abortion.

You'd be surprised at the lessons drawn from such parental behavior.

> Sure, the tactics are heavy handed, but anything is fair in war,

What war, Mr. Chaney?

> and as the pro-choicers like to say, IT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL TO DO IT.

Actually, I _think_ that the daughter has _some_ legal recourse in many
states; that's something that might be interesting to research.

> =============================================================================
>                  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
> =============================================================================

Pro-life means anti-sex altogether!

-- 
Chris Lyman -  a personal        /   "I belong to no organized
opinion for every occasion       /   political party.  I am a
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov    /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 19:07:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.170656.13697@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu 
(Gregory S Clausen) writes:

}A dialogue with a pro-abortionist:

Excuse me, you must have me confused with someone else.  While there are
several people who call themselves "pro-abortion" I am not one of them.  
Perhaps you meant to say "pro-choice."  Or perhaps you are of the opinion
that this is just a mere difference of terms.  In that case, I would urge
you to take Don Porter's lead (a person who advanced such a notion in 
relation to another matter) and just quit posting.

[This is yet another person, neither Mr. Clausen nor myself.  I think
it might have been Larry Margolis.]

}>So something which terminates a pregancy before your 18 days does not
}>constitute an abortion?  Puzzling.  

}What's puzzling?  Are you suggesting that induced abortions occur before
}18 days of pregnancy?  Surely you're not another who hides behind the skirts
}of spontaneous abortions.

It is a bit confusing to know exactly to whom you are addressing this,
perhaps we don't understand your meaning as well as you might think.  
Being as how we are so slow of wit, please include attributions for
those who might not be as clever as you.  In any event, I will suggest, 
no, I will assert and back up that indeed induced abortions occur before
18 days of pregnancy.  

I think that you are using this word "abortion" without understanding it.  
Or perhaps you think that anything that happens before 18 days not an induced 
abortion.  Another case of terminology.  Sort of like my saying that anything 
I pull out of my garden is by definition a weed.  That isn't exactly true, 
but if anyone asks me if the plant I pulled out was really a weed, I can reply 
"I pulled it up didn't I?  It's a weed by definition."

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion is Murder!!!
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:32:05 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:


>I don't understand how you people can even debate such a clear cut issue.
Clear cut to you, perhaps.  It's not.  Look specifically at the law, and
then at Romans 13.  While I beleive that abortion is wrong, I can't impose
this view on others.  If I convince them, fine.  Otherwise, I must follow
the law.

>Abortion is murder and there is no way to deny it.
Sure there is.  Abortion is legal.  Killing a person is not.

>These supposed "Pro-Choice" people are supporting the killing of little 
>babies.  To me, the ironic thing is that many of the Liberal supporters of 
>abortion are the ones that oppose the death penalty and believe animal rights 
>are more important than human's.  
The death penalty is carried out against 'persons' as defined under our
laws.  As such, there is no inconsistancy.  Our law doesn't define an
unborn child as a person.  No matter how fervently I believe that, it
doesn't make it so.  I oppose abortion.  But I can't impose my moral values
on someone else.  You have to show me a person, as defined under the law
(remember Romans 13) and then I'll agree it should be outlawed.  Or, you
have to define an unborn child as a person.  From an non-religious, medical
perspective, that's fairly easy to do for a fetus that has reached
viability.  Before that, no chance.  It's a religious/moral position that
society has no general agreement on.

>I just pray to the Lord above that those Liberal tax and spenders
>Gore and Clinton do not get in the White House. George Bush is this country's
>last hope before the liberals and the homosexuals take over.
You really are out of touch, aren't you?  Clinton is hardly a 'liberal' by
the usual definition.  And Bush certainly isn't a conservative.  You're
being taxed & spent to death right now.  What's your point?

If you're talking about Bush's 'pro-life' stand - remember, he suffered a
convention-conversion!  He was pro-choice until Reagan asked him to be VP,
and then he came over.  If he gets reelected, I expect him to drop his
opposition to RvW.  Don't believe it?  Remember 'Read my lips, no new
taxes'???  NOT!

>If this country is not careful, it is going to feel the wrath of God, and it 
>will not be pretty.
Oh really?  Showing love and tollerance for everyone is going to bring down
God's wrath?  I hardly think so.  Jesus hung out with the scum of the earth
in his day..."Tax collectors and 'sinners'"...and fishermen wheren't
exactly thought to be the most intelligent men around...and they preached
the Gospel!  Just where do you think Christ would be ministering today???

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Some useful statistics
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 00:30:14 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Summary: Do your homework, Bill
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul22.185747.3417@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
#In <1992Jul21.152018.67042@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
#   (Susan Garvin) writes: >
#
##The study of psychological aftereffects in members of Women
##Exploited by Abortion (the Reardon study) is not worth refuting
##again.  (Can you say biased sample?)
#
#Despite the bias of the study sample, should the adverse sequelae
#experienced by these women be relegated to insignificance because 
#such women seem to represent a minority?  Do these women deserve
#a hearing or should we simply infer a "pro-lie" political agenda?

I was criticizing the study, Bill.  I should think that that
was obvious.  The results of the study are often cited as
an estimate of how many women have psychological problems
following abortion.

##The evidence which supports the safety of legal abortion is
##overwhelming.  Unscrupulous anti-abortion people attempt to
##fabricate evidence to refute it, but these attempts have been
##exposed as frauds over and over again.  
#
#So are you saying that no one ever experiences any emotional trauma
#subsequent to abortion?  Or just that those numbers are so few that
#it's an insufficient reason to restrict the practice?  Even if the
#latter is true, we're still left with some number of women who do
#report serious emotional consequences.  Should anything at all be
#done (prior to the procedure) to preclude the possibility of such 
#reactions?

Well, I was speaking of physical problems here, but since you
obviously misunderstood, I'll just answer your questions.

I think that the number of women who suffer emotional trauma
following an abortion is insufficient to make abortion 
illegal.  I have said, in this forum, that I believe that
some women do in fact have emotional problems following
abortion.  I don't think that alcohol should be illegal
because a minority of people have serious problems controlling
their drinking, either.

If you paid your colleagues who work in abortion clinics the
courtesy of asking them what kind of counseling they offer,
rather than just assuming the worst, you would know the
answer to your last question.  Clinic counselors make
every attempt to discover coercion, which seems to be the
primary complaint of WEBA members.  Reputable clinics offer
follow-up counselling after the abortion, and many sponsor
groups for women who wish to talk about their experience
with others.  

There's a book called _The Ambivalence of Abortion_ that
discusses some of the problems that women have from a
pro-choice point of view.  There's also a new book
out called _Abortion: A Positive Decision_ that deals
with the benefits women report from having chosen 
abortion.  I would recommend them both.


Susan
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: COERCED ABORTION [Can you help me polish this up?]
Keywords: felony, sexual battery, coerced, abortion
Date: 25 Jul 92 05:29:51 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Jul23.162158.9339@ncar.ucar.edu> ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.070322.19014@cc.uow.edu.au>, nyikos@cc.uow.edu.au (peter nyikos) writes:

>[long article deleted, equating coerced abortion with rape]

>Fine.  So abortion should be made illegal since some women are coerced
>into having abortions.

>I take it you think that, since some women are raped, the solution to
>this is to make all sex illegal, both consensual sex and rape?

It also means that we must outlaw birth, because some equally noxious parents
as existed in the article force their minor against her will to carry to term.

--Teddi
--------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)--------------