HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Randall Terry running for Congress 
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:18:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug8.105625.3197@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>
>	Oh yeah, he once said the he wants the laws (yes, the ones
>we non-chri$tians have to follow) to based on the bible. Does this

Hmmm, sounds interesting.  Does he mean the entire Bible?

Does this mean we'll ALL have to start eating Kosher?  How about honoring
Shabat (which is sunset Friday to sunset Saturday)?  How about sending
menstruating women outside the city to live until they are "clean" again?

If he just wants the Ten Commandments, does this mean he wishes to establish
an Official Church of the United States of America ("you shall have no other
Gods before me")?  Does he think he's going to get an Amendment passed
negating separation of church and state?

Or is he just talking about the New Testament?  There go women's rights!

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the
poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal
bread.
		-- Anatole France
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32634 alt.abortion.inequity:3173
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:35:15 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <1992Aug20.141415.3923@spdc.ti.com>, serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com writes:
|Whether or not you are celibate is your choice.  My point being
|that we must begin to accept responsibility for our actions,
|even if that means accepting responsibility for the failure of
|contraception.

Why, yes.  And sometimes acting on that responsibility
means obtaining an abortion.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"It appeared to her that he did not excel in giving those clearer
insights, in making those things plain which he had before made
ambiguous."  -- Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Bush, Clinton, and the Abortion Issue
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:21:58 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug19.170543.18257@ncsu.edu>  dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug19.042801.14790@cco.caltech.edu>
> tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
>
> > Sorry.  The Democratic platform is NOT unrestricted abortion-on-demand, as
> > has been pointed out to you an almost uncountable number of times by now,
> > Mr. Holtsinger.  The platform supports the FOCA, which is not unrestricted
> > abortion-on-demand per se; and the reality of the current situation is
> > *definitely* not unrestricted abortion on demand.
>
> But I've seen no proof that the FOCA is not unrestricted abortion-on-
> demand.  The FOCA is intended to codify Roe v. Wade into law,

The second sentence is proof of the first.

> since Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion on demand,

This is not true.

> I've presented proof that Roe is abortion on demand,

This is not true.  You've presented paranoid speculation.

> And where's the proof for this "three doctors" claim?

Perhaps you missed the post saying it was on 60 Minutes recently.
Write them for a transcript.

> I'm illustrating the realities of the situation,

The reality of the situation is that if Bush is re-elected, women will
become second-class citizens.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 05:35:49 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <9814@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>  brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:
>
> In <1992Aug10.134616.27853@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ And
>
> >Trying to draw a bright line at
> >conception is just as arbitrary as a line at viability or birth.
>
> In  <9779@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>  brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:
>       Birth isn't arbitrary, just wrong.
>
> In article <1992Aug11.144923.40319@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@wats
> > Truth by Blatant Assertion.
>
> Which I guess is an insulting way

Nope, it's not insulting; sorry if you took it that way.

> of trying to stop you opponents from
> making succinct statements of their position.

Had you indicated that you were stating your position or your belief,
I wouldn't have commented.  But simply saying "it's wrong" sounds like
you're stating an absolute Moral Truth; since I don't agree that it's
wrong, I pointed out that it was TbBA (perhaps you missed the FAQ?).
Meaning if you want me to agree that it's wrong, you'd have to support
it rather than simply state it.  If you don't expect me to agree, then
there's no problem.  You can believe whatever you like; I only object
when someone tries to force their beliefs on others.

> Birth is not an arbitrary point, because is really does correspond to a
> quantum change in a human's state of being.
>
> Conception is not arbitrary either, it corresponds to a quantum leap in
> the state of being of a human.

Then you'd agree that birth and conception are equally arbitrary?  :-)

> Birth is unfortunately becoming rarer in our society.

Rarer than what?  I believe that it's more common than it's ever been...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dirigible Boy Logic (was Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all thing) )apparently
Keywords: Hack. Man. Hacked.
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:07:24 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Aug17.161207.27853@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>>> Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
>>> scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...

>>Have you ever wondered why you have so many aliases, Mr. Hall?  

>Well, Hall was one that Scott Roby gave me. 

Nope.  You were the one to come up with the name of Hall.  I was the 
one to figure out that the "Hall" posts were coming from a second 
computer account belonging to Steve Chaney (which has been confirmed 
by two separate persons in phone calls to Steve's sysadmin).

Too bad you don't have the guts to apologize for your prank.




-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: A little known fact...
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 19:58:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.181641.38727@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

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

>>   "The change in Western attitudes to infanticide since Roman times is,
>>    like the doctrine of the sanctity of human life of which it is a part,
>>    a product of Christianity."

> Says nothing about Judaism.

No, but the other source which you deleted does mention Judaism.

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: BIBLE THUMPERS - ALLIES OF CHOICE!
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:26:03 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Aug13.032705.26476@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:

>    It used to bother me how much the bible thumpers try to oppose
> choice by citing some bible.  It does not matter which bible they
> quote - just as long as they quote one of them.  Because the more
> these religious freaks use that old time religion, the more clear
> it becomes that anti-abortion laws violate the principle of state
> and church having as little to do with each other as is possible.
> The founding fathers clearly intended to vaccinate our government
> from as much religious contamination as possible.  So preach your
> heads off.  But remember that the more you oppose abortion by the
> might of Jesus, the more you shoot yourself in the foot. Also, if
> you don't have religion on your side, you don't have anything!

  No I am not here to disagree with Mark (that's twice now! :-)).  Just
to pose some thoughts/questions.  Most of us hold with the idea of the
separation of church and state (the Man himself said: "Render unto Caeser
that which is Caesar's, render unto God that which is God's.").  There
are times when this is easy to spot (institutionalized prayer in public
schools).  But, at some point the line gets fuzzy.

  Much legislation, indeed our form of government derives from a certain moral
view (even the idea of not imposing morals on others is a moral viewpoint--
slippery little thing, ain't it?)  Many people's morals are heavily influenced
by religion.  I think you begin to see where I'm heading.

  Where do we draw the line?  What's the test?  For abortion, certainly, I 
think it is easier to see--opposing based purely on religious grounds is
something we cannot allow in a multi-religion country.  It would tend to
support a particular religion, which is unconstitutional.

  Comments?

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:39:42 GMT

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

>In <ohgc6so@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:

>>  - The fetus takes precedence over the woman's health?
>>    (no abortion in cases of danger to woman's health)

>Ditto, unless the danger is of a debilitation so severe that the
>woman would almost be better off dead.

People like you frighten and sicken me, Nyikos.  You would gladly
force me to do something against my will until I was nearly "better
off dead".  Think of the lifesaving things YOU could do until you
were "better off dead".  (Donate both kidneys, and live on dialysis
for as long as you can.)  Think of how you would feel if someone
were to kidnap you and remove your kidneys, all the while claiming
that this was a good and moral thing to do because you were saving
a life.  I ask you, just consider how your words would feel coming
from someone else and applying to YOU.

I think we have a contender for the Kevin Welch 100.00000000% Award.

>>  - The fetus's right to life takes precedence over the woman's
>>    right to life?  (no abortion in cases of danger to the
>>    woman's life)

>Negative to that one.  However, I know of no examples at this advanced
>state of our knowledge except ectopic pregnancy, which is very often
>taken care of before the fetal stage.  

You should get out more.  It is still not uncommon for women to die
in childbirth.

>>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
>>"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

>If men could have abortions, pregnancy would be a sacrament.

Perhaps because pregnancy would be so _rare_, Nyikos?

                      -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Democrats support unrestricted abortion on demand throughout pregnancy
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 16:20:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.194938.25106@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug22.181348.33337@watson.ibm.com> 
> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
> 
> >dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >> The Democratic party supports Roe v. Wade,
> >
> > This is true.
> >
> >> which is essentially unrestricted abortion on demand throughout
> >> the term of pregnancy.
> 
> > This is not true.
> 
> > [.. Margolis ignores my quote, as expected ..]
> 
> I quoted a Georgetown University law professor, and the quote 
> demonstrates that Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion
> on demand throughout the term of pregnancy. I have additional  
> documentation which I can send via e-mail to anyone who requests it. 

The quote is entirely sp[eculative, as you well know, and flies
in the face of the facts, such as explicit statements in the
relevant cases that the states may regulate third trimester
abortions, such as the fact that abortions are not obtained in
the fashion suggested, and such as the fact that numerous states
have laws which regulate or prohibit abortions in the third
trimester except under specified circumstances of threat to the
life of the pregnant woman.  That a Georgetown law professor
can make an argument that flies in the face of the facts
convincing merely demonstrates that he is clever.  You have
demonstrated that you will not let facts get in the way of
your agenda.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: APOLOGY (another one)
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:29:11 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu



Well, I apologize to Patrick Humphrey for making my "much as you'd like to"
remark, when he said his wife wouldn't let him forget their anniversary.
I'm sorry about that.


Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Re: Bush's abortion stance
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 03:22:32 GMT

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <usglkrx.713832448@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> 
>usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) writes:

>> Incidently, tothe press was asking Marlin Fitzwater about the statement
>> the Barbara Bush made regarding abortion.  He said something about her
>> being entitled to her opinion and then said that President Bush considers
>> the platform plank justified.

>Can you provide proof for these statements?

>>Lori Kent Rothman


>Doug Holtsinger

It was aired on CNN news.  I heard it at 5:30 PM (EST) on our local CNN 
radio station.  The way the radio station usually runs, it is repeated 
every half hour, unless something more interesting occurs.  The only way
I could think that it could be *proven* would be to call CNN and ask
them to confirm it.

Lori Kent Rothman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:53:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.181831.2699@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>
>
>
>
>              Dear Steve,
>
>                 What's your point?

My point is, Cough Boy, very little of anything you claim, is correct
within the vaguest sense imaginable. 

You are the shame of the pro-choice contingent on this newsgroup. 

>                           Love,

I'll pass.

===============================================================================
Question: If you don't have truck bombs and thousands of fanatics to
	  sacrifice their lives and drive them, how do you scare a 
	  nation into giving in to your demands?

Answer:   Buy coat hangers and encourage women to kill themselves
	  with them and call yourself "pro-choice".
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: A little known fact...
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:04:11 GMT

In article <Bt3GyF.CGs@rice.edu> 
patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

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

>>>>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

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

>>>>>> "The change in Western attitudes to infanticide since Roman times is,
>>>>>>  like the doctrine of the sanctity of human life of which it is a part,
>>>>>>  a product of Christianity."

>>>>> Says nothing about Judaism.

>>>> No, but the other source which you deleted does mention Judaism.

>>> And they're both from the last half of THIS century -- the trouble is, 
>>> since you're talking about *early* Judeo-Christian thought, you're missing
>>> the mark by, oh, 2000 years or so...

>> Didn't you notice that the quote is a historical commentary? 

> Of course.  Did you notice all you're doing is spinning your wheels?
> (You can't prove your assertion any more than you can disprove it.  

Oh, I see.  It appears that modern historical commentaries are not 
acceptable to you as proof.  Fine, you don't have to accept them.  
May I ask what proof would be acceptable to you? 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Myths and facts about Planned Parenthood
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:41:56 GMT


	I saw one interesting omission:

	There was no mention about masturbation.

	Has PP ever promoted that as a safe form of sex?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Barry Goldwater
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:02:56 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu

From article by keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
> -> Goldwater's been pro-choice for a long time.  I'm glad that
> -> he's speaking up about it, but I agree with Jim - it's too
> -> late.
> 
> i'm glad that it is (too late). i think the choice issue is the
> sigle-most important factor which will swing the election to the
> democrats.


BLAH HA HA HA HA!   You wish!   The ABORTION issue is the single-most
important factor which will swing the election to the pro-lifers!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: WHO OWNS WHO?...or is it whom?...or what?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:18:21 GMT

In article <nyikos.713891006@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <92225.110850ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes:
> >Every pregnancy will cause some physical damage.
> 
> So does every vaccination.  The question is, do the benefits
> outweigh the damages?

The question is, who decides what level of risk they find
acceptable?

Just because you, a male who will never be pregnant and therefore
never have to ask what the risks are to yourself or make an
assessment of such risk, think that every woman should find
the risks acceptable does not mean that every woman would.

Peter, I don't think the risks of skydiving are all that great.
Therefore, I think legislation should be passed that requires
you to jump out fo an airplane.  I don't think the risks of
giving up a kidney for a transplant recipient are that great.
Therefore I think that you, Peter, should get your tissues
checked immediately, and legislation should be passed that
requires you to give up one of your kidneys (assuming you have
two in working order) the first time someone comes up as a
good match to your tissue.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 03:28:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.224500.25686@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu 
(Suzanne Forgach) writes:

}No, Linda.  They've been talking the talk, but they haven't been
}walking the walk.   Walk into ANY, and I mean ANY abortion alternative
}organization ANYWHERE, and you will not find even one pro-"choicer" among
}them.  

Do you not consider birth an alternative to abortion?  Does the
University of Virginia Health Sciences Center (we used to be just
a med school and a hospital) not qualify as an organization?  Do 
you not think births occur here, or is it just that you find it hard
to believe we have any pro-choice folks working here?  No, we
don't exclusively offer alternatives to abortion, but you didn't
say that.  

}It always has been and always will be the pro-lifers who provide any
}non-abortive help to pregnant women in trouble.

Huh?

--
       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
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Did Bill Clinton embrace the Bush campaign?
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 01:58:04 GMT

<1992Aug13.184108.24179@wuecl.wustl.edu> (Don Porter) writes:
>> "... We're against family values, we're against work, we're going to
>> tax and spend to death."
>> 
>> 			-- Governor Bill Clinton addressing a rally at 
>>                            Independence Hall in Philadelphia, 8/10/92

<1992Aug13.194030.19851@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> This wouldn't by any chance have been taken out of context,
> now would it Don?

Of course it is.  It wouldn't be funny otherwise.  (It may not be
funny anyway, but this way I've at least got a shot.)

> I know you meant it as a joke, but actually there are a bunch
> of rather empty-headed fools out in netland who are probably
> going to take this quote home with them and tell everyone that
> Clinton seriously intended it as it reads above.

True.  But if I worried about how "empty-headed fools" were going
to construe my articles, I'd never post anything here at all.

> Oh well, I like you anyway.

Oh goody!

|   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._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion