HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge  (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:51:22 GMT

> = (Susan Garvin) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>## = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>##I think some pro-choicers on the net don't want to acknowledge 
>##the existence of extremists on their side, because if they did, 
>##they couldn't bash the extremists on the pro-life side without 
>##looking a little hypocritical. 

>#Hey, *I'm* an extremist.  I'll bet others would "acknowledge" it.

>I'll acknowledge it.  I'll also express my admiration for it.

Thanks, Susan.

[re: Fascist Fair in Houston...]
>#'Course, if you're white, well-off,
>#loudly Christian, and bigotted as hell, you *may* be under the illusion
>#that you're OK.  Heh heh.

>I've been away - did DOD denounce Pat Buchanan's racist and homophobic
>speech in Houston, or is he trying to ignore it?  

No. Way.  Good point, though.  Another question might be, does our
heartbroken little Propellor Pouter, busy playing that racist trump card
to the hilt, want to comment on Buchanan?  Whaddya think, Chaney?

>Did he comment on Bush's praise of the cops who attacked the ACT UP 
protesters?

Could you expand on this, Susan?  I haven't heard much about it (I
watched little of the R.C.; it made my blood boil.)

>Susan,
>who walked into the Dome just in time to hear Dan Quayle say, "Bill
>Clinton is no Ronald Reagan."

Naturally; _Clinton_ has an IQ in *3* digits.

Bentsen really burned the Republicans' asses to a CRISP,
didn't he?  I mean, first Reagan then Quayle ripped off ol' Lloyd.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 18:01:38 GMT

<1992Aug31.162916.17324@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) said:
>In article <1992Aug31.041628.25063@rotag.mi.org> 
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>
>>>> What do people think of the idea?
>
>>> That it is not surprising that someone who desires
>>> to control what women do with their bodies would
>>> wish to control the content of people's posts.
>>> I can't imagine any other reason for restricting
>>> freedom of expression.
>
>> Did Linda consider any other possibilities, e.g. creating a SEPARATE
>> group for the purpose? Of course not. She's locked into FLAME_MODE=ON.
>> Her post attempted to slam shut any and all windows of opportunity for a 
>> useful, valuable discussion. 
>
>Hmm, maybe we should create a moderated newsgroup for discussing
>the proposed talk.abortion moderated newsgroup? :-)
>
>> I support the idea of a moderated group. Even more so after Linda's post than 
>> I did before.
>
>Would you be willing to serve as a moderator? 

Maybe I should volunteer to be moderator.  I can't think of a better
background: pro-abortion, pro-women's-rights, Atheist, intolerant of
"darcy-name-calling" posts, intolerant of hypocrisy...


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35027 alt.abortion.inequity:3522
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 4 Sep 1992 08:34:50 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep3.145448.26265@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>And no, this law will not force women to get abortions, but it WILL further
>reduce the probability that fathers will EVER have any rights in regards to
>their unborn children.

There is apparently SUCH DEMAND for an automama.  Can't we get this thing
researched and off the ground?

>Abortion by definition is NOT a personal choice.  It involves a minimum of
>two people (father and mother) and depending on your belief system,
>one or more babies.

Mighty funny definition here.  In what way is the father 'involved' in the
removal of a fetus from the body of a woman?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Fodder for DOD's .sig (Was: Pro-Choice Challenge)
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:33:23 GMT

>Doug Holtsinger

>      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
> that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
> we want to be precise)..."
>   -- Gloria Feldt,
>      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
     -- dking@nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)  <Insert header info here>
     -- gjh@virginia.edu (Galen Hekhuis)
     -- chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) <Insert header info here>
    
What is it about Judaism that bothers you, Doug?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34518 talk.religion.misc:15403
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: So why is DearOldDoug AntiChristian?????
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:17:01 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
] 
] DOD has come up with Yet Another cute as hell .sig.  
[deletions ]
] 
] In article <1992Aug30.225649.16236@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] 
] >Doug Holtsinger
] 
] >      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
] > that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
] > we want to be precise)..."
] >   -- Gloria Feldt,
] >      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona
] 
] >  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
] >    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
]      -- dking@nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)  <Insert header info here>

Thanks Dan King for bringing this one around again....

Maybe Now he will explain where he really stands on
the Matter of Christianity, and whether or Not he really
is merely an AntiChristAthiest Bent on Destroying
Family Values and Mocking Christianity!!!!


ciao
drieux




-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34897 talk.politics.misc:43672
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Gordon Goes TOO Far!!!
Date: 4 Sep 92 00:15:44 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


In article <1992Sep3.112859.7509@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>I've got Almost EVERYTHING that Schwarzenegger has acted in,
>and ALL of it, save perchance T1, is straight forward GodFearing
>WholeSome Family Entertainment Upholding Traditional Family Values.

This is all true for his movie persona, but jeez look at his 
personal life.  You know he has at least one child with Kennedy
blood in it.  How can a man that would actually bed with a 
Kennedy be held up as an example of Traditional Family Values.
I would never dare to comment on his good republican image
movie roles, but the mans got to straighten out his personal 
life.

I guess Ms. Schwarzenegger felt she was too high and mighty
to accompany her god fearing hubby to the big republican family
value picnic in Houston.  I was kind of looking forward to seeing
JFK role over in Arlington.

Dan King
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fodder for DOD's .sig (Was: Pro-Choice Challenge)
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:28:32 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

>>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

#>>>Doug Holtsinger

#>>>      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
#>>> that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
#>>> we want to be precise)..."
#>>>   -- Gloria Feldt,
#>>>      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>>>>  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>>>>    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
>>>     -- dking@nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)  <Insert header info here>
>>>     -- gjh@virginia.edu (Galen Hekhuis)
>>>     -- chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) <Insert header info here>
>>      -- cookc@rpi.edu (rocker)
>       -- steven@jaynes.uswest.com (Steve Novak)
	-- bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)

>>What is it about Judaism that bothers you, Doug?
>Yeah!  What Chris said!
Really! You claim to be an atheist?!?

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:13:39 GMT

M21164@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>>                                    .... The supreme court basically said
>> that up until a certain time in the pregnancy a woman may choose for
>> herself whether or not to have an abortion.  How is that forcing anything
>> on any one?  Unless of course, you mean offending the delicate
>> sensibilities of the pro-lifers.
 
> For a long time similar logic was used to defend the practice of owning
> slaves.  "You think slavery is wrong? Well, then don't own one! But don't
> try to force *your* belief system on me"  Slavery only offended the delicate
> sensibilities of the prohibitionists.

Can you find an actual slave owner who said the above to stand in for your
strawman?
 
> This brings us quicky to the crux of the abortion argument, because it will be
> pointed out that slavery involves the rights of another person but, according
> the pro-choice view, abortion does not.  Well, pro-lifers believe it does,
> and unbelievable though it may seem to some, there are numerous thoughtful and
> resonable people in the pro-life crowd.  This is why the issue of abortion
> belongs not in the judicial, but in the legislative arena, where resonable
> people can argue the merits of each side.  That's what democracy's for.

Reasonable people like members of Operation Rescue, Missionaries to the Unborn
or Lambs of Christ?  Ri-i-ight.

Need I say again that fetuses have never had the same standing as born persons,
even slaves, in any social, legal or religious sense?  Why should we give
fetuses rights that no other member of the human species has?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33609 alt.abortion.inequity:3295
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:18:10 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

[...]
>If we can find a solution to the moderator/volume problems,
>then I plan on putting out a CVD.  

In your BVDs, and PDQ?  BFD.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 3 Sep 92 03:44:08 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes:
-> >There are a number of people in this newsgroup who
-> >say they are prochoice and who have bashed
-> >prochoicers they view as extremist.
-> 
-> And, perhaps without exception, each and every of
-> those Moderates has subsequently been labelled
-> "pro-force" or at least "not pro-choice" by the
-> Extremists.

can you point out a single case where this occured
where the people you refer to as "not pro-choice" do
not support legislation to restrict choice?

less that, even if your unsupported assertion is true,
so what? the labeling would have been accurate.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Extremism
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 11:40:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.034140.24681@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
(Kevin Darcy) writes:

}Triplespeak. Quadruplespeak. Thanks for explanation, Galen. It's all clear
}as mud now.

At least I can speak.  If there were anyone else in the entire world that
had expressed confusion about this, perhaps I could take you comments a
bit more seriously.  You are unique in that regard, Kevin.  I suggest
the reason you find things "clear as mud" is probably because you've fallen
face first, and, as usual, are blaming others for what you see now...


       TTTTTTTTTT    SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      K   K    CCCCCCC
           T         S             A       A      K  K     C
           T         S             A       A      K K      C
           T         SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      KK       C
           T                S      A       A      K K      C  
           T                S      A       A      K  K     C
           T         SSSSSSSS      A       A      K   K    CCCCCCC

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Five questions for Larry Margolis
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:24:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep04.161541.40172@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>> Well, DOD, can you answer any of these questions?

> Of course he *can*

But apparently you're incapable of remembering the answers which I 
have already given.  




Doug Holtsinger

      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
 that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
 we want to be precise)..."
   -- Gloria Feldt,
      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Item for Chaney's study of abortion-adult/child sex link.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:55:26 GMT

In <BtJxEw.D6z@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jamcdani@zia.ucs.indiana.edu writes:

>In article <seaQLiG00WBKM7rFZY@andrew.cmu.edu>  writes:
>>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote
>> >	Steve Chaney has been pursuing the subject of how the right to
>> >privacy, explicitly written into the Florida State Constitution, gives
>> >rise to both abortion and adult/child sex.  I have not had the time to
>> >look over his contributions in detail, so I'm posting this in the hope
>> >that he can see where it fits into the big picture.  
>> >	It's from Mississippi rather than Florida, but note the "shipping
>> >the movies across state lines" clause.  Query: how much of the case 
>> >would be thrown out of a Florida court as being unconstitutional?
>> > 
>> >	This item, for which I am indebted to Charles Wysong, appeared
>> >in the _Jackson Herald_, September 30, 1989.  It appears between the 
>> >two rows of asterisks.
>> 
>> There followed an article about a gynocologist who was interested in
>> kiddie porn followed by these statements

Look at the original article before accepting Loomis's completely 
misleading description of it.

>> >QUOTE OF THE DAY:
>>  
>> >   	Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this?
>> >				--Stephen A Chaney
>> 

>Here's my proposed response to the statutory rape problem. You can't
>have an abortion until you can get pregnant (duh!),

Alas, this is incorrect.  I can give you the name of at least one
woman who "had an abortion" when not pregnant, and reports of lots more.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Keywords: Reinforcements
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:53:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.140639.6280@bmw.mayo.edu> 
bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:

> A fetus has never been a legal person.

Before Roe v. Wade was handed down, there was never any constitutional
right to kill a member of the human species.  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: List of Susan's false accusations 
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:23:18 GMT

In article <BtoDvx.EvK.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> I can't imagine
> why you want me to provide article numbers of posts to which
> you replied, anyway.  

I just want you to provide proof for your accusations. It makes you
look extremely foolish to wage a campaign of character assassination
without providing any evidence to back up your allegations against
me.  I think you're hoping that these allegations will take on
an air of truth to them if you repeat them often enough, but people
living in the real world usually expect to see some kind of supporting 
evidence for these kinds of allegations. 


>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
 that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
 we want to be precise)..."
   -- Gloria Feldt,
      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Should FetalIdolators Be allowed as 'moderators'????
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:45:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.223638.29990@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

}Hey, by fealty may belong to Dan (King) but I must admit that I, too,
      ^^

How could I do that?  Of course I tried to type an "m."  Beats me.
They aren't even that close on the keyboard...I can't even blame
it on "fat fingers."  It doesn't even have any clever Freudian 
interpretations.  

--
       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
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Date: 1 Sep 92 07:45:06 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

> Nyikos
>> Chris Lymann

>>Just in case there was any doubt about the mindset of some of the
>>Republican Party's leading lights, Pat Robertson recently wrote a
>>letter criticizing the Equal Rights Amendment, suggesting that
>>feminists want women to kill their children and practice witchcraft.

>Interesting use of the word "suggesting."  Just how strongly did he
>suggest it?  Robertson is much too astute to make blanket statements
>like the one you say he suggested.

Shows how informed you are.

-- 
"A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors ... perform third trimester abortions"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:00:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.035846.40919@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug29.180604.13845@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>
>> [re: "three doctors" claim]
>>
>> ...It doesn't appear that Mr. Margolis is
>> willing to track down the source.
>
>That's right - I'm not.  As far as I know, it's true.  If you can
>list more doctors that perform third tri abortions, or you can
>document for me cases of women getting third-trimester abortions
>for "frivolous" reasons, I would of course change my tune.  Unlike
>some, I don't knowingly pass on lies.

Larry, passing off something as fact without lifting a finger to check whether 
it's true or not demonstrates a reckless disregard for truth, and is in fact 
"lying". Elvis may be alive and little green men may live on Mars, but would 
you pass those conjectures off as "facts", Larry, just because you had no 
reasons in particular to doubt them? That's Argument from Ignorance. In law, 
there is a buzz phrase -- "knew or SHOULD HAVE known" -- which reflects the 
attitude that, below a certain level of intellectual diligence, an unchecked 
truth is indistinguishable from an outright lie. If I were you, I'd retract 
your claim pending positive proof or disproof one way or another.

Which brings us to the question; who has the burden of proof here? Normally,
the person making the claim has the burden of proof. Since (as I understand 
it) Larry was the one who made the claim, this burden would normally fall on
his shoulders. However, this kind of claim is somewhat unique. Because the
claim is one of LIMITATION, Larry would have to "prove a negative", which is 
not an acceptable request. Disproof, on the other hand, is much easier -- 
i.e. citing the names of four or more doctors, in this case. From a purely
pragmatic standpoint, then, the burden falls on the disprover here, however
unfair that may seem. Doug, please do the research, if you would. I for one 
am concerned about the accuracy of the claim, but I don't think you'll ever 
prove anything one way or another by haranguing Larry. He likes to dance, but 
he rarely provides anything worthwhile...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Thank you, sincerely (was Re: Only God Can Help Us!
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:45:56 GMT

In article <BtoJJo.GH7@chinet.chi.il.us> 
katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:

> Thank you, Steve and Cameron, for bringing back the realization that
> there *are* Christians, evangelicals even, who are fair and reasonable.
> That not all Christians are hateful and intolerant. That not all
> Christians are hell-fire bent on forcing their will and beliefs on
> every single human being in the world 

I think these statements denigrate Christians.  You say that "not all
Christians are hateful and intolerant".  I think that statement tends
to promote a bigoted stereotype that Christians are "hateful and 
intolerant".  If you said "not all homosexuals are promiscuous" or
"not all Jews are money-grubbers" then I think people would be outraged 
by your remarks.  I find your remarks very offensive.   

>Vickie


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion