HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 19 Jan 93 01:47:52 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <C115Jx.M3F.1@cs.cmu.edu>, garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> In article <1993Jan16.225803.13056@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> #The people who use examples of abortion clinic protests to 
> #condemn the entire pro-life movement should ask themselves 
> #whether they're willing to apply that same judgement to the 
> #sometimes violent anti-war protests of the 1960s. 
> 
> Only someone as twisted as Reverend Holtsinger would compare
> these two cases.  One should remember that the target of the
> anti-war protests was the military establishment, while
> the targets of the right-to-lie movement are pregnant women.
> 
> Susan

I'm sure the math grad student killed at U of Wisconsin, Madison,
in 1970, will be pleased to know that his murder by antiwar 
protesters was an honest mistake.

I find the analogy very strong.  I can respect the good intentions
of antiwar and pro-life activists.  I can understand the arguments
for civil disobedience that are advanced by the civilly disobedient
factions in both groups, and provided that they are prepared to
pay the cost of being convicted and serving jail time, I can
respect their integrity.

What I can't respect if when liberals like Susan Garvin try to
justify the sort of crap that was done by the Nixon Administration
in the 1970s against antiwar movement people -- and that's essentially
what she does whe justifies the use of the Klan laws against 
Operation Rescue.

State laws are quite adequate for this.  The use of the federal
government for this sort of thing is yet another manifestation
of how much the left now controls the lower court benches of
this nation.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
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 19:50:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.115252.2129@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> hasselbring@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
>According to both the Washington Post and the Washington Times, 
>Clinton said that America should be a place where abortions are legal 
>and safe, but rare.  
>
He certainly did. Don't you think that's a good goal to shoot for?

>I wonder what he meant by rare.  Does he realize that currently one of 
>every three pregnancies are terminated by abortion?  Does he realize 
>that over 4000 babies are aborted per day on the average in the US?
>
I think it's safe to say that President Clinton has access to more
statistics then any of us here would care to wade through. Of course
he knows wha tthe current rates are.

>I know of no one who thinks that the repealing of the bans on 
>22-Jan-93 will result in fewer abortions.  How can Clinton say that he 
>thinks aboritons should be rare when his actions will make abortions 
>more common?
>
Perhaps because (being a rational man) he realizes tha tthe way to
reduce the number of abortions is to address the causes of abortion.
By education, ensuring the availability of effective, affordable
contraceptives, and by education.
Once upon a time, a few people managed to make the consumption of
alcholic beverages for purposes of recreation outlawed. Did it reduce
the number of people imbibing these beverages? Nope, not at all. It
was a total failure.
If you want to reduce the number of abortions, banning abortions is
not the way to go about it. Address the causes. Teach kids the truth
about sex, and how to protect themselves. Encourage them to wait, and
discourage promiscuous behavior (just don't delude yourself into
thinking you're going to stop teenage sexual experimentation).
If no girl ever got pregnant because of birth control failure, or
because no effective birth control was available, or because she
didn't know that 'you can't get pregnant if we do it standing up, with
our left arms tied behind this tree while singing _Amazing Grace_' is
a lie, how many abortions would be unecessary?
To paraphrase your last line:
How can you say that you think abortions should be rare when your
actions do nothing to address the causes of abortion?

--
                  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: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Want to adopt
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: Fri, 22 Jan 93 07:48:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.164220.26602@clpd.kodak.com> hammond@stimpy.serum.kodak.com (Kevin Hammond (x37516)) writes:
>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.
>
Have you looked in your phone book under 'adoption services'?
You can also contact your local social services department for
adoption assistance.

>--
>Kevin Hammond
>work phone: 253-7516 email: hammond@serum.kodak.com
>home phone: 723-1295
Tell your bosses it really stinks what they did to Dan Breedy...

--
                  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: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 08:58:48 GMT
Distribution: na
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <nyikos.727631046@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>No, Dean.  I have yet to receive documentation that these things happened.
>Unlike you, I think it diminishes my credibility to repeat things from
>a source as unreliable as Chris Lyman, and say they are facts.  I did
>say to Larry Margolis, "Well, it's good to have the suspense over,"
>and asked him how what address to write to in order to obtain documentation
>of Chris's claims.  Larry, who gives considerable evidence, albeit
>circumstantial, of being in regular touch with Chris,

As usual, your evidence amounts to naught.

>claimed I should
>have no trouble finding out the address myself.  I told him I was familiar
>with the situation here in South Carolina, but Minnesota might be a whole
>different ball of wax.  Larry let the matter drop, and I left things at
>that.

I'm not your go-fer.  You can either figure out who to contact for yourself
or ask Chris.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58040 talk.politics.misc:69887 talk.religion.misc:27620 misc.legal:23345
From: rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: When will We See the Changes in the Stats...
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:18:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Georgia Tech CERL/EE, Atlanta, Ga

In article <1k2qdfINN1m0@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>Isn't it amazing how the same crowd that doesn't see a nine month
>>fetus as human, thinks it's suddenly "real people" after the 
>>umbilical chord is cut?
>
>One has to draw the line somewhere.  Since there is no societal consensus
>(in the USA), at this point one is free to draw the line where one wishes.

Or is drawing the line "somewhere" like a hunter going hunting and
shooting at anything that moves in the trees, even though he can't
make out what it is?

He could say, "well I don't know if what is there is a deer or not." Yet,
I'd dare say the hunter would be HELD RESPONSIBLE for killing a man,
who was in the trees.  Yet, some say I don't know if it is a person
or not, so I'll draw the line at birth and anything before that is unknown
and so I'm not responsible.  Does lack of knowledge justify an overt act? NO.

As far as a societal consensus goes, I think most people believe that
the unborn is a person.  However, they are willing to let SOMEONE ELSE (not
themselves) decide to terminate a pregancy for some supposed goal
or achievment that is "needed" or required as seen by the other person.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu  |    Love and Worship God the Father and His Son, 
                      --|--            the Creator of the Earth. 
Pro-Life!          -|-  |  -|-  Come bow down in worship, let us kneel
Pro-Responsibility! |   |   |   before the Lord Our Maker.  Psalm 95:6 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57440 talk.politics.misc:69329 talk.religion.misc:27324 misc.legal:23141
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Followup-To: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:26 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <Jan.20.14.35.49.1993.26756@romulus.rutgers.edu>,
 kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes...
>In article <1993Jan20.031318.26063@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>> Well, I'm not homosexual, . . . .
> 
>But you are an apologist for them.

I know I shouldn't say this, but why should gays need apologists?  As far as
I'm concerned, it's none of my business what consenting adults do behind closed
doors.

							Daniel Reitman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men.soc.women,alt.flame
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Does James Keegan support Cochran's mandatory sterilization program?
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:23:07 GMT

i restored the newsgroups line and reset the follow-up
to t.a, as dodie did. for those of you who don't know
him, he often crossposts to several newsgroups with the
follow-up set to t.a. some have speculated that he does
this so that only the folks in t.a. who already know
he's a liar will see the follow-ups. i suppose, if he
really believes that follow-ups are appropriate in t.a.
only, that's where he'll reply to this.

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->> it always gives me, well, a nice, cared-for feeling,
->> when [Mr. Holtsinger] puts my name in the subject line,
->> misrepresents something, misrepresents something, and 
->> then is exposed as a liar again.

->All I did was quote Keith Cochran as saying 

did you feel embarassed when so many posts were made
pointing out how you butchered his post? perhaps not.
after all, you've been caught misrepresenting what
people have posted quite often, haven't you?

if, instead of misrepresenting keith's post, you meant
to ask if i support any kind of steralization, the
answer is no, i don't. it must be difficult for you,
sorting out what you want to know from the lies you
post.

perhaps you should consider getting help.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:02:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan20.220903.23815@cbfsb.cb.att.com> del@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (denise.e.long) writes:

|In article <casivils.727566210@node_508ba> casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
|>Tit for Tat,
|>
|>Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of 
|>an individual to use public money for their children to attend the school 
|>private or public of their choice.
|>
|>                                Craig


|Errr...

|Excuse me?  I really don't see the connection. Pro-choice (in the 
|connotation that it is used in this newsgroup) refers solely to
|allowing a woman (and/or her partner) to choose whether a pregnancy
|is carried to term. Not to choosing schools, clothes, pets, etc.

And Pro-Life (in the connotation that it is used in this newsgroup)
refers solely to the idea that a fetus has the right not to be killed.

Yet there are people out there who try to draw a connection between this
philosophy and whether people who are Pro-Life can also support such things
as war and the death penalty.

You are right in your comment, there is no connection in the first,
just as there is no connection in the second.

Somebody implying the Pro-Life connection is what started this sub-thread.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: acolman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alison Colman)
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 03:23:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.115252.2129@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> hasselbring@g
vax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
>According to both the Washington Post and the Washington Times, 
>Clinton said that America should be a place where abortions are legal 
>and safe, but rare.  
>
>I wonder what he meant by rare.  Does he realize that currently one of 
>every three pregnancies are terminated by abortion?  Does he realize 
>that over 4000 babies are aborted per day on the average in the US?
>
>I know of no one who thinks that the repealing of the bans on 
>22-Jan-93 will result in fewer abortions.  How can Clinton say that he 
>thinks aboritons should be rare when his actions will make abortions 
>more common?
>
>Sue Hasselbring
>hasselbring:guvax.georgetown.edu


It would be silly to think that Clinton is not aware of the number of
abortions being performed currently in this country.

Are you one of those people that think that the best way to make abortions
rare is to either make abortion illegal, or put as many restrictions on
the availability of abortion as possible?If so, it is fortunate that
Clinton does not think along the same lines as you do.

By reversing Bush's and Reagan's policies wrt abortion last Friday,
Clinton is fulfilling the "safe and legal" portion of his statement. And
if he approves the Family Leave Act, gives more money to family planning
clinics and government-sponsored research of contraception and the like,
and in general creates a climate in this country which would make it both
easier for people to prevent unwanted pregnancies and for women to have
and keep their children, he is fulfilling the "rare" portion of his
statement. In a much more humane and effective manner that would have
positive long-term results, IMO, as opposed to Bush/Reagan's pro-"life"
policies.

Alison Colman
acolman@nyx.cs.du.edu, alison colman@launchpad.oit.unc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:31:28 GMT

The_Doge writes:
#As I understand it, the rationale was that
#since the attacks were not aimed at all women, the law did not apply.


According to the Washington post, Scalia stated that since the OR
people would also be blocking any men who were seeking abortions, the
attacks were not aimed at women.

Beleive it or not.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 01:17:38 GMT

In article <C14Azs.Kw3@athena.cs.uga.edu>, hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu
(Paul Hudson) writes:

>In article <1993Jan18.151446.8005@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>>Anyway, *personally* I think that it's hard to be a good christian
>>without supporting abortion, death assistance and homosexuality.
>In your opinion, were Paul and the other apostles not "good Christians."
>Christianity has opposed abortion for centuries.  Abortion is
>specifically condemned inthe 2nd century writings "The Didache."
>The New Testament
>says that the body (of a Christian) is the temple of God.  How is that
>compatable with death assistance.  Christians should offer life
>assistance.
>And the New Testament also speaks against practicing homosexuality.

Bravo. Brav-o. Let's take this a point at a time, shall we?

We've already examined your stance on abortion and ripped it to shreds.

How would you offer "life assistance" to someone who is terminally ill
with cancer, wracked with constant pain, and is living a hell on earth
s/he cannot escape? "Would you like some more heroin?"

And of course, you finally reveal your bigoted, homophobic leanings. If
this is Xianity, then praise be to G-d for not making me a gentile.

Tep
-- 
Mo-bio majors do it between the beta-sheets.
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 06:11:20 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>>>  "Personally, I think we need to develop some sort of 100% reversable
>>>>>   steralization procedure, and make it mandatory for both sexes to be 
>>>>>   steralized to enter school."
>>>>>       kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith Cochran) 
>
>>> I don't know why it sounds better to you.  I think both ideas
>>> are equally disgusting. 
>
>> Why?  Don't you support mandatory (forced) reversable pregnancy?
>
>No, I don't believe that people should be forced to have sexual
>intercourse against their will.  Rape is a crime, and I'd like
>it to stay that way.  

Sorry dude, you're not going to dodge the question that easily.  I
didn't say anything about sexual intercourse.  You advocate forced
_pregnancy_, NOT sex.  Why then are you so opposed to forced
sterilization?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: CLINTON ACTION ON FETAL TISSUE EXPECTED TO BRING NEW TREATMENTS
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:55:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.180307.7280@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <74215@cup.portal.com> 
#L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno) writes:
[DODie's insistence that we all recognize his ignorance of
biology deleted]
## In 1988, before the ban was imposed, a federal advisory committee
## recommended the use of fetal tissue in treating Parkinson's. It drew up
## guidelines designed to prevent women from getting abortions in order to
## provide fetal tissue for loved ones or for money. The guidelines also say
## that doctors should not change their abortion techniques to help preserve
## fetal tissue for research.
#
#None of these guidelines can prevent pregnant women from believing
#that they would be helping another person by aborting and donating
#the fetal remains. 

If the tissue from the fetus is usable, she would be helping another
person.  I'm not sure if the Rev is advocating lying to women, or
if he is just complaining because many women are capable of seeing
the obvious despite his church's attempts to lie to them.

Susan


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57865 talk.politics.misc:69705 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13802 talk.religion.misc:27524
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are you pro-choice on education? (was Re: Pro-)
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:54:51 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <zlsiida.838@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:

|The best education is at the best school...in any given geographical area, 
|only one school can be the best, so evrybody would choose that one - but it'
|s too small to take all, so some don't get their choice.
|This is the problem with your idea of choice - it actually denies choice to 
|more people than it gives choice.
|So it's fairer to have one school system for everybody and strive to make it 
|equally good evrywhere, and a damn sight better than it now is in most 
|places.

Actually there can be many best schools.  This will of course depend on
which attribute of schooling each set of parents consider to be the most
important.

But even if there is only one best school.  That school can still expand,
and the other schools can still do their best to emulate what they think
made that one school the best.

One size fits all solutions usually end up offending everybody.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 17:38:09 GMT


In article <C1FxF5.L4I@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu writes:
|For those who are personally opposed to abortion, but don't want to force their
|opinions on anyone, and are thus "pro-choice", could you please explain why you
|are against abortion, if not for the reason that it causes the death of an 
|unborn child, and if it causes the death of an innocent human, why do you act 
|in favor of allowing that to continue?

Abortion, while 11 times safer than childbirth, is still less
safe than contraception.  Similarly, I can support the existence
of open-heart surgery while wishing that no one ever needed to
get it, and hoping that people choose preventative measures
instead.

---
C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
"Perhaps my favorite moment was when a pro-lifer threatened to 
kill me.  Or maybe it was when a pro-lifer said I should have been 
aborted.  Nah, the best moment was when the one who said I 
should be killed claimed to respect all life."  --Jay Stein, in talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion