HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@launchpad.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Quote from John Calvin (1509-1564)
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:47:19 GMT

In article <4mcqkwm@lynx.unm.edu> johnchad@triton.unm.edu (jchadwic) writes:
>
>In Message-ID: <1992Nov11.044552.28091@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
>
>>"The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already
>>a human being and it is a most monstrous crime to rob it of the
>>life which it has not yet begun to enjoy.  If it seems more
>>horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because
>>a man's house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely
>>to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before
>>it has come to light."
>
>I am surprised that ANYONE would use John Calvin as any sort of moral
>guide to life. Calvin had Michael Servetus burned at the stake for
>heresy over the writing of the book "On the errors of the trinity".
>The theology of Calvin has, in my view, done more damage to the name
>of Jesus than almost any theology before or since.
>
	But you must admit that asserting the right to life of an embryo
while slaughtering your political and philosophical enemies is right in line
with much of the thinking of the political right wing today.  Quoting Calvin
in support of anti-abortion laws is more ironically appropriate than the
original poster realizes, IMHO.
	Also IMHO: argument by "authority" is valid in forensics contests but
otherwise worthless.
>--john chadwick      johnchad@triton.unm.edu
Chuck

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-choice: Stalin's Heroes, Take 1 (was Re: anti-choice: a gap at the top?
Keywords: keeganblather
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:15:38 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Nov2.162028.28391@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>Who's Dennis?

Nice try at amnesia, kid.  You know who "Dennis" is.  You spent several 
months first talking as "Dennis" and then denying "Dennis".  

No matter HOW YOU SLICE IT, you're pretense at innocence at the mention 
of this name rings totally false -- much like "Dennis", yourself.


-- 
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,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Nov 92 22:21:44 GMT

In <SCOTTS.92Nov4160323@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:

>In article <nyikos.720418431@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>   The American public has consistently supported a ban on abortions after
								      ^^^^^
>   the first trimester (except to save the mother's life) in poll after poll.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Except in Arizona, where a measure which would have forbad abortions
>except to save the life of the mother was defeated, and in Maryland
>where a referendum similar to FOCA was passed.

Maryland already had a law on the books STRONGER than FOCA.  What was
the point of putting the public through a referendum?

>I guess Arizona and Maryland are not part of Nyikos's America.  Heck,
>he thinks Pittsburgher's talk like Kentuckians!

Heck, Scott Safier has a real weakness where conditional clauses are
concerned.

I spent four years in Pittsburgh, and very few people near CMU said
you'uns.  But they are not your typical Western Pennsylvanians.
In the high schools in the smaller cities, it is a different story,
though even there, the people who say you'uns regularly are decidedly
in the minority.

Western Pa. has more in common with W. Va. and eastern Kentucky
than it does with eastern Pa.

Down here, most people on campus do not say "y'all".  But when I went
to watch a high school girls' basketball game in Sumter, SC, I not only
heard a fair number of y'all's, but one little girl turned around and
asked me, "Are you a Yankee?"

Peter Ny.
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Date: 5 Nov 92 11:01:48 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <JBATES.92Nov4124651@pinocchio.encore.com: jbates@encore.com (John W. Bates) writes:
:In article <1d8bbfINNd8b@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
:> In article <JBATES.92Oct30113645@pinocchio.encore.com> jbates@encore.com (John W. Bates) writes:
:
:>>	Given a definition of "person" which depends upon brain function,
:
:> Which is completely arbitrary, but do go on.
:
:	I disagree. I hold that our capability for intelligent behavior
:is precisely what has made the human race a success. We can defy our
:instincts and surpass our genetics. "Humanity" has not achieved anything.
:People did.

It's arguable that the human race was a success.  First tell me what we
were trying to do, then I'll tell you if we were successful.

What does "capability for intelligent behaviour" mean?  [ quoted out of
context that could be deeply embarrassing :-) ]

[...]

:>>	You seem to be forgetting something, Mr. Holtsinger. While
:>>a newborn infant may not be a person, it is most definitely a child.
:>>It has been born, and is no longer occupying the body of a woman. 
:>>That fact puts it under the protection of the law.
:
:> IMO, That is not the fact that _should_ give it the protection of the law.  
:> Also, IMO, a z/e/f can enjoy a full set of human rights without this
:> infringing in any way on a mother's right to abort.
:
:	I agree, in part. A z/e/f certainly should hold *some* rights, if
:only on the basis on its potential. I'm not arguing that. I just don't
:believe that a fetus is a person, nor that a newborn infant is all that
:different.

What is this "person" crap, and why have you invented it?  

:John

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: The answer!!!
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 12:56:33 GMT

In article <1dcd70INN5nn@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
}In article <1992Nov5.220155.26171@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}>In article <1992Nov5.133158.8441@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu 
}>writes:
}
}>Religious stuff, which the Most Reverend Father Doug Holtsinger will notice
}>I did not bring up, neither did I bring it into this newsfroup.
}
}
}He will?  What makes you think he *will* notice it, Galen?
}
}He's never noticed anything else that's hit him up 'long side the head
}before....

That's true.  Let us now pray that The Most Reverend Father Doug 
Holtsinger notices being struck by a stick.  (For enlightenment 
purposes only, natch).  Let us further pray that the stick was not
from a tree on his property.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Friday, 6 Nov 1992 17:39:24 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject:    a mr. intellectual thread: live by the sword...

In article  <1992Nov3.080633.4379@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:
>In article <92305.094124ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>>In article <1992Oct26.154453.277@cs.yale.edu> Eric Rescorla says:
>>>In article <1992Oct23.181741.19224@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy writes:
>>
>>>>Is it not insulting and inflammatory to someone wishing to call themselves
>>>>"pro-choice" to be "informed" by a net.label.cop that they can no longer use
>>>>the label? Can such insulting, inflammatory statements not be validly
>>>>characterized as "attacks"?
>>
>>>I would tend to think so.
>>
>>While you gentlemen are defining insulting and inflammatory
>>statements, could you tell me if it is insulting and
>>inflammatory to label someone who opposes abortion legislation
>>and believes that abortion is a matter to be left to a woman
>>and her doctor as a radical extremist?
>
>Stop euphemizing. You support abortion rights up to the moment of pregnancy,
>do you not? You support abortion FOR ANY REASON, do you not? Therefore, you
>would, in theory, support the "right" of a woman to maliciously have her
>almost-newborn butchered moments before birth, would you not? That, my dear,
>_is_ Extremist, no matter how much you try and sugar-coat it with vague,
>indefinite terms.

I support what is the situation in my country - no
abortion legislation.  Abortion is considered a medical
procedure and is regulated under the Health Act.

Please post where I have ever stated that I support
"a woman to maliciously have her almost-newborn
butchered moments before birth"?

>>Is it insulting and inflammatory to repeatedly declare
>>that someone has done something, after the person has
>>said they did not, and not offer a shred of evidence
>>to support your accusation?
>
>You mean like
>
>       "Darcy has been [...] arguing for abortion restrictions"
>
>??? Something like THAT, you mean? Yes, I found that unsubstantiated statement
>_very_ insulting and inflammatory. What do you intend to do about it?

Considering you posted a global retraction  of your
arguments for abortions restrictions recently I
would hardly say that statement was unsubstantiated
and in its original form without your deletions
it was also accurate.  Further since I did not make
that statement I am not going to do anything about it.
You however are rabbiting on about the inappropriateness
of labelling people in this forum, particularly when
they have expressed a dislike for the label, yet you have
no qualms about participating in exactly the same
behaviour.  What do you intend to do about that Kebbie?



Linda
--
Polls show that the majority of Canadians believe that abortion
is a private matter between a woman and her doctor and are,
therefore, pro-choice.
  Abortion in Law and History: The pro-choice perspective, 1990
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 16:44:25 GMT


In article <1992Nov3.210902.3556@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
 
>On this point we are both right. There are always exceptions and always rules.
>I favor a 24-hour waiting period. This will give those that did not do
>enough "soul-searching" time to do so and for those that already have while
>a minor inconvience it will not change the desicion they have come to.
 
Heres a better and easier to implement solution Jeffrey.  Why don't we
just ask the woman, "have you carefully considered this decision?" when 
they go to procure an abortion?
 
>Also fully inform the female of the Pro's and Con's of the issue. This
>would allow the uneducated to know what they are doing while those that
>have already come to a thoughtful well informed decision it would only
>be a minor inconvience.
 
I have a better solution here to.  Why doesn't the clinic ask them 
when they show up, "Have you made a thoughtful and well informed 
decision?" 

>One way to at least partially solve the problem would be to get better
>conselors from clinics.
 
Do you have specific problems with the current counselors?
 
>True. Education is a primary step to solving the problem because most
>abortions are performed because they are unwanted pregnancies.If we
>educate people on where babies come from we could cut down on the number hopefully
 
Do you really believe that their are that many woman that don't know
where baby's come from?  
 
>Concerning the rest of your question about an wanted pregnancy becoming
>unwanted I would absolutely keep this woman from having an abortion unless
>it threatened her life. When she intentinally got pregnant she did it
>for the sole purpose of bringing life into this world and now that she is
>carring and nurturing that life inside her womb she wants to kill it and
>snuff out its life because she's having second thoughts. How  cruel
>can you get?
 
Have you ever talked to a woman that got an abortion?  I have talked
to a few and I have yet to meet one that got an abortion because
she wanted to kill and snuff out the life of the fetus.  As far as 
my own personal research goes, the women that I know that procured
abortions did it because they did not want to be pregnant.  Care to
elaborate about these women that get abortions because they want
to kill.
 
Jeffrey, I'd advise you to talk to women.  You seem to be having
a difficult time seeing them as fellow human beings.  The ones
I have known are perfectly capable of making major life decisions
without your, mine or the government's help.  The ones I know are
not as flightly as you may think.  They don't go down to the
abortion clinic on a whim.  By the time they get there, the ones
I have known have already given the decision a lot of consideration.  

 
>-Jeff Price
 
Dan King
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from Clement of Alexandria (Second Century)
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:07:27 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <1992Nov11.050106.28360@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>" . . . for those who conceal sexual wantonness by taking
>stimulating drugs to bring on an abortion wholly lose their
>humanity along with the fetus."

Oh, this is beautiful.  Let's analyze that sentence for subject and
verb.  All we need do is remove the preposition...

" . . . for those who conceal sexual wantonness . . . wholly lose
their humanity along with the fetus."

The man is clearly opposed to abortion not because he gives a tinker's
damn about a fetus, but because he sees it as a tool to "conceal
sexual wantonness".  It's sex he's opposed to, not abortion.  Had you
read this sentence more carefully, you surely wouldn't have quoted
it.  This is the anti-sex viewpoint that pro-life advocates so resent
being accused of.

Joe


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47842 alt.abortion.inequity:5070
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Who owns sperm?
Date: 13 Nov 1992 19:55:29 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1bhi7lINN9bu@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <Bw42t5.8L5@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>>Ah.  I see.  An *excellent* argument for not leaving one's personal property
>>(one's sperm) lying about outside of the realm of one's control.  Now, if
>>*you* can think of a way to allow a man to repossess sperm HE left lying
>>about, I'll support you in it.

>If I you invite me to your house, and I drop my wallet there, is it yours?

>The property of invited guests does not automatically
>become the property of the host simply because physical contact is lost.
>If you're going to cite a legal principle, please cite one that EXISTS.

Ah, but it does become the property of the finder if it remains unclaimed
for a period of time (usually 30-90 days).  Extrapolating from this legal
principal, I suggest that if the man has been out of the loop (with regards
to the woman's pregnancy) for a comensureate period of time, then he
has forfeitted any rights to control or influence the outcome of the 
pregnancy.

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Where should I put my pro-life money?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:35:43 GMT

In article <9400@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> In article <nyikos.721350434@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> #In <Bx4BDC.ID0.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> #
> #I have deleted all of Susan Garvin's pro-choice and pro-abortion
> #organizations.  
> 
> Ignoring the fact that there were no "pro-abortion" organizations
> listed, I'd like to thank Petey Honey for deleting them - it
> underscores the difference between us.

I'd also like to point out that Dr Giggles insinuated that I had
deleted a lot of material from a posting recently in which I
called him a stupid blustering fool in order to avoid having
to support my opinion.  What the ever brilliant "Doctor" failed
to comprehend was that the material was deleted by the poster who
followed my posting.  Then he came out and deleted Susan's material
in order to avoid, I think, admitting that Susan had been very
fair in her posting.

I think the "Doctor" has a lot of apologizing to do, but I don't
think he has the necessary character.

Dean Kaflowitz
 
[lots of text deleted below]

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy,misc.legal
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Susan Garvin on Forgery
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Nov 92 22:34:04 GMT

In <1992Nov3.161742.24954@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:


>In article <kmr4.36.720737660@po.CWRU.edu> you write:
>>In article <z+f1y!q@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>
>>>has anyone been prosecuted for forging a net.post?
>>>
>>
>>	I doubt there would be much incentive to, as they are normally
>>done in humor. Nor, do I think that one ought to go after every single
>>last bugger. Like the obcure Maine law which stipulates that one can not take
>                              ^^^^^
>>a bath/shower while naked, they are lax in the enforcement. However, there
>>have been several suits over false quoting in a public bulletin board, and
>>I certainly think forging a post can be construed as a classification of 
>>missquoting. So yes, if one causes enough damage, you can be procesuted.

>Can you give me a reference for this law?  How much do you want to bet that
>it was passed in reference to showering/bathing on a public beach?

Sounds about right.  A lot of "bizarre" laws get to look just a tad less
bizarre when you read the fine print.  South Carolina has laws against
"adultery" and "fornication", but to be illegal these must involve either
cohabitation or habitual actions.

Even so, one would think that sometimes people would be prosecuted under
the law, at the behest of jilted spouses and SO's, but one never reads
of such things in the papers.

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:35:59 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>But a child is killed during an abortion, the child is not 
>just 'left to die'.  You can't escape the fact that during
>the vast majority of abortions, the child is intentionally
>killed by the abortionist. 

... instead of being left to die a slow death of oxygen deprivation.
Is this more 'humane' to you?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
        "Sex is DEATH!"      Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
         -- Barbara Bush                                         -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: *Some* battles have been won
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:24:58 GMT

Eric Marsh made some interesting points.  Imo, he didn't hit the nail on the
head, but he didn't hit his thumb either.  To be precise, *some* battles have
been won but the war will rage on.  Bill Clinton's election should assure
that the FOCA will be passed and that justices sympathetic to women's issues
will be appointed to the Supreme Court.  The number of female members in both
houses of Congress jumped and anti-abortion referendums in Arizona and
Maryland were defeated.

However, clinics will continue to be blockaded and doctors and patients will
continue to be harassed.  (N.B. - the house of the judge who issued the
restraining order against demonstrators at the Robbinsdale Women's Clinic
is being picketed.)  And members of the Religious and/or Radical Right will
continue to assure a high demand for abortion by opposing sex education and
effective birth control.

It ain't over yet, folks.

On a lighter note, Chaneyhall should be more amusing than ever. :-)

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
 "Republicans run on a platform that government is bad.  And when we
           elect them, they prove it!" -- Phil Harbison
From: spinoza@next06wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Maryland Freedom of Choice Act : Margin of Passage
Date: 8 Nov 1992 07:32:43 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland College Park
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: next02wor.wam.umd.edu



First, let me apologize for wasting bandwidth with like, facts, but I  
failed to archive the post asking about the margin by which Question #6  
passed in the Maryland referendum, so I couldn't, like, keep ta pristine  
and like  take it to like e-mail. 

That having been said, let us recap:

 - according to the Washington Post early edition for Wednesday, November  
4, the margin of passage, with 98% of all precincts reporting,  was
997, 636 in favor of Question # 6 versus 618,551 opposed (for the Mensa  
candidates like Petey in the audience, that'd be roughly 62% in favor, 38%  
opposed - slightly smaller than the margin by which Barbara Mikulski  
defeated (Gott Sei Dank !) Alan Keyes, which was 69% to 31%).

We now return you to your regularly scheduled flamefest, already in  
progress................






shalom

jeff

"Let no one build walls to divide us
Walls of hatred nor walls of stone
Come greet the dawn and stand beside us
We'll live together or we'll die alone"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.dads-rights