HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: Re: Some people at lease hide it better(formerly: March for life)
Originator: jjprice@c00076-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:26:48 GMT



In article <1993Jan8.084716.24288@wam.umd.edu> you write:

|>What: <1993Jan7.231803.4625@ncsu.edu>
|>Who:  jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) [to Patrick Humphrey]
|>
|>>P.S. I hope your quest against life does take a serious turn and have
|>>you wind up losing yours.....
|>
|>Congratulations, Mr. Price, you're in extensive company.  Perhaps I've
|>even met you before - maybe you were the guy at the pro-life march who
|>said I should be killed.  Or maybe you were the one protesting outside
|>a clinic and said I should have been aborted.  Perhaps you were the man
|>in wearing the bicycle helnet who rushed a police line and lunged at a
|>patient?  Oh wait, I know - you were the one saying your "amens" when
|>Randall Terry publicly encouraged his followers to pray for calamity
|>to strike the family of an abortion provider.
|>
|>Nah, you're probably just some random bozo who only pretends to respect
|>life, and there are a lot of those.
|>
|>You're an embarrassment to humanity.  IMO of course.
|>
|>--Jay T Stein ... adding the above, along with Suzanne's "look at what you
|>  married" comment, into his pro-life quote file.
|>

To Mr. Stein...

Apparantly you have strong feelings on the subject...there has been some
debate about me double checking my posts for typos but usually I don't. I 
should have checked this one....I have posted that this article has mistyped
by me and should read....does NOT take.....could be just a freudian slip?
Please don't quote me as saying that I would wish someone hurt....I was
at a friends house over Christmas he is 18 and has a little sister who is
@ 8 she has a very anoying us.My friend told her that he wished she had
never been born...I threatened him with bodily harm if he did not apologize to
her and that he should not say something like that to anyoone again. No one
has a right to say who should be born and who shouldn't....of course my
threating harm was not exactly appropriate it amounts to the same thing
you were complaing about in your post and these people are among the most
hipocritical I know...they claim to protect life when they threaten some
one elses life..

My apologies...

-Jeffrey Price


-- 
-Jeffrey Price
_____________________________________________________________________
| "When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were |
|  able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not  |
|  to go also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with  |
|  him to the station?"                                              |
| "OBJECTION: That question ought to be taken out and shot!!"        |
|____________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers 
Summary:  a propagandistic misreading of Roe v. Wade
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:37:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.203000.2255@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>But the definition of ``health'' given in Roe v. Wade
>and the companion case Doe v. Bolton is so broad that it
>encompasses emotional and psychological health.  In order
>to perform a constitutionally protected abortion, a physician
>need only determine that an abortion is necessary to preserve
>the woman's emotional or psychological health, which can be
>easily demonstrated for a woman who would otherwise remain
>pregnant against her desires. 

This is a red herring.  What Roe v. Wade *determined* was that
legislatures might have a compelling interest in regulating the
access to abortion in the third trimester.  Any given statute in
question must then demonstrate, at least on appeal, such interest.

The health of the pregnant woman is one of the most traditional
grounds (e.g., it has long been a relevant consideration in the
Jewish halachic discussion of these issues) for limiting the
state interest even in the third trimester.  Legal implications
of raising this as a limitation of state regulation have never
been fully worked out, and you (obviously) are offended by the
fact that YOUR preference on this is not established law.

As a Christian who is most emphatically "pro-choice" (and who
notes that choice may *always* be *for* life), I resent the
attempt to polarize these issues into a cartoon of Good v. Evil.
I would agree with the court of 20 years ago that no compelling
case has yet been made for state denial of the mother's rights
until the fetus is, at least potentially, a viable independent
organism.  That same court DID lay down a principle that state
interest may compel the mother (as, in general, social interest
may compel us each individually against our own liberties) in
a situation where a rational case (as against violent emotions
by the extreme advocates) can be made, always giving the benefit
of doubt to the autonomous individuals who stand for themselves
before the Judgment of God.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:04:08 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article by steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak):
>> 
>> You're frothing.  Calm down.  Many women consider an abortion the
>> ultimate in dignity, 

>Yeah right.  Stripped and strapped on your back to a table, with a metal
>suction tube shoved up your vagina.   That's the "ultimate in dignity".

Sounds an awful lot like giving birth to me...  

(before you whine about "metal suction tubes", remember that vaccuum
extraction has replaced the forceps as the preferred method for
assisting a difficult brith)

>> considering forced birth as the alternative.

>Such a laugh!   It's no more "forced" that breathing.  In fact far less so.

Typical Forgach insensitivity.  "If _I_ enjoyed giving birth, then
_everyone_ enjoys giving birth!"

>S. Forgach

                    -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:50:56 GMT

In article <C0KED8.4A0@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>Patrick_Andrew_Barnes@cup.portal.com writes:
>
>>I find it funny, and as a potential father in the future, sad that several
>>pro choice people jumped on Edward Simond's back when he said that a woman
>>got HERSELF pregnant, yet turn around and vehemently state that it is the
>>woman's natural right to have an abortion.  C J even went so far as to
>>claim nobody was involved but the mother and her doctor.  The prevailing
>>attitude seems to be that the father DOES have responsibility for the
>>pregnancy, DOES have responsibility for supporting the child, but DOESN'T
>>have any say in the matter of whether that pregnancy is continued or not.
>
>Well, of course.  The father doesn't have anything to do with *continuing*
>the pregnancy, but he has a pretty big part in *starting* it.  When you
>think about it, is doesn't sound quite so inconsistent.

It _is_ inconsistent, however, to bill a man, not only for a pregnancy 
which was STARTED by him (for which the appropriate "bill" is the cost of
an abortion and/or associated medical costs), but also CONTINUED for 9 months, 
without his consent, and maybe even without his knowledge. Sounds like an 
overbilling to me.

								- Kevin
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:38:16 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <3439@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays) writes:

>To say "my standards are right for me, and yours are right for you"
>is to say that these standards are relative. In contrast, absolute
>standards apply to everyone.

This reminds me much of the RCC in the period of the Inquisition. If
your beliefs don't match those of ours, or we don't like you, we'll
have a pagan roast. (after some nice stretch therapy, of course, and,
if you're lucky, we'll even throw in a pendulum!)

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dads-rights,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:53:37 GMT

<1idavcINN5dp@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
><C0EHs2.169@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>><1icftuINNopf@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>I'll repeat, in this particular instance of your...hmm...original editing, Don.
>
>>>Are you looking for an answer, or just a brangle?
>
>>>>1.  Presumption in favor of the father, until such time as fathers
>>>>receive 49% of sole/primary custody awords.
>>>
>>>No. ...
>
>Of course, you DELETED the the part where I said that I was in favor of 50%
>of all future awards being made in favor of fathers.

Yes, I deleted your discussion of 'equitable standards,'
which was beside the point.  Are you in favor of AFFIRMATIVE ACTION,
or were you just trying to flame Karl using misleading statements?

>But that wouldn't be *dishonest* editing, now would it?

No, it saves bandwidth wasted on irrelevant topics.
Put it back in, if you like.  I've got nothing to fear --
it's only you who seems to "misplace" archived comments.


>I also note that you deleted your own "AND/OR"s that appeared between
>the three questions which would seem to imply that one or all could be
>answered and would thus satisfy your query.  I wonder why you did that?
>Hmmmm.

Hmmmm.  Perhaps they're not crucial, and the bandwidth can be saved?

The AND/OR's were to give you the opportunity to come up
with a *positive* response that defines AA in *your* feminist view.
You seem to be in favor of "equal rights" of some sort, but not AA.

Perhaps you could come up with your *own* definition of AA,
as I requested, since it was YOU who implied you're a feminist 
in favor of AA (in order to flame Karl as much as you could).

(By the way, I'm not sure why this should be posted to talk.abortion,
especially since it was you who objected to multi-groups.)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: 5 Jan 93 01:32:30 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <lefty-040193163025@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
#In article <1236@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) wrote:
## 
## Susan,
## who joins the others in wondering why Dr. Giggles separated his
## list by gender
#
#As do I.  I also wonder on what basis "Professor" Nyikos chose to lump me
#in with those of the male persuasion.

(Was this Darcy-bait?)

I've yet to see PHoney use any basis other than his own imagination
and prejudices for anything.  

Of course, Dr. Giggles won't be answering our questions - he variously
claims that he can't or won't read the newsgroup to which he posts 
his drivel.  He's requested that others use e-mail to communicate with
him, while he continues to post here.  I'm still wondering how many
people accepted his one-sided offer.

Susan




Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:17:19 GMT

From article by sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson):
> by mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran):
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>>>Yeah.   She ain't yours.   She's another man's, a man who's been
>>>with your wife.   I hope it drives you crazy.
> 
> Here it is!  I found it!  James Keegan wrote a post called "anti-
> choice morality" based (in part) on this atrocity.  He suggested
> that the failure of pro-life folks to condemn Suzanne's behavior
> was evidence for some sort of moral compromise.  Now I see why.
> 
> Suzanne: your comment is sick.  Your vindictiveness is unhealthy.
> I think an apology is in order.

No way.   Read my statement again.  In no way did I in fact insult
anybody.   I said nothing derogatory about Patrick, or his step-daughter.
Unless just pointing out that she is his step-daughter is such an insult.
But if you and Keegan and Patrick find that it is, well, I'll find _that_
pretty funny.

 
> James: remember, I don't care what you think.

And well you shouldn't, because he doesn't give a damn what _you_
think.


> Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
> sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu

Hey Steve, we work within walking distance of each other :-) 
You and me and Beth Weiss.


Suzanne Forgach
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:13:22 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <29608@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>>In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>>>The word "possibility" is crucial here:
>>>Sex = possibility of pregnancy; so
>>>Consent to sex = Consent to possibility of pregnancy.

>>Crossing the street = possibility of Mark Pundurs running me down
>>Consent to crossing the street = consent to Mark Pundurs running me down

>The difference is that nobody's rights are violated when you jump
>out of my way (or sue my ass later). Abortion violates the z/e/f's
>right to life.

That is not the point. Can you make a case for the second case not being
a logical extension of the first? If not, then do you see how absurd
the first case is? (Glasses might be in order, here)

>YES, I realize I must now defend the proposition that a z/e/f has
>the right to life. 

Progress!!! :) We are getting somewhere...

>However, some pro-choicers in t.a have claimed that the z/e/f's humanity 
>is irrelevant -- that human or not, the z/e/f can ethically be evicted
>by the mother from her womb. Do we agree that this pro-choice argument
>is wrong -- that the z/e/f's right to life is the crucial point?

No. Because to do so would be to acknowledge that there is a right to
life. I don't acknowledge any such thing. (Right to Privacy is another
matter entirely)

>>kowtow to god. This implies that there must be something rather unpleasant
>>about god, and his heaven.

>There is. In Christian theology, God expects you to do difficult things
>like love your neighbor as yourself. If you don't, you choose an eternity
>apart from God (aka hell); but many people go for the short-term gain.

>Nothing ironic here.

There is also supposed to be everlasting happiness in heaven, a reward
of some sort. Rewards are supposed to be pleasant (At least, that is
implied) and Hell very unpleasant (stated directly as burning in brimstone,
or some other such nonsense, for all eternity). And that's it.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: University of Victoria
Date:  9 Jan 93 06:23:42 GMT

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <aidler.726435845@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>>Abortion *may* be a responsible medical treatment for
>>a pregnancy.
>>However, any decision needs to recognize that there
>>are now two lives to consider and that the mother and 
>>father agree to some parental responsibility when they
>>consent to sexual relations.
>>

>Unless you are going to claim that sperm and ovum are not alive, there
>has never been a point in the process in which more then one life was
>at issue.

>However, given that only one of those lifes is capable of having an
>opinion on the subject (the z/e/f can't. No brain, ya know?) and that
>it is her body that is sustaining the z/e/f, the final choice in
>abortion lies with the mother. You have yet to show any reason why
>this should be changed.

Any zygote has the *potential* to produce a unique child
(unless you can prove otherwise -- not in general but for
each one individually).
Just because the child is not born shouldn't deprive
him or her of all rights.
The fact that he or she is in no position to object to his
or her death does not give the other party total control
of the situation.
Even those tried in absentia are entitled to legal 
representation.

A IDLER
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Greetings
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.
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 00:26:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.193547.25300@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <29366@oasys.dt.navy.mil> 
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>
>> and Chris' observations hold true for them (the majority). We have had
>> one other who claimed to be an atheist (saying you are anti-creationist
>> is redundant, BTW:) but he apparently has religious views, as expressed
>> in his opinions and what he chooses to contest in his posts. 
>
>I contest what I see as anti-religious bigotry and intolerance.
>Your twisted reasoning is the same kind reasoning which says that
>people who defend homosexuals from vicious bigoted attacks must
>be homosexuals themselves.  It's a bunch of nonsense. 
>
And there can be no disputing that you, DODie, are the pre-eminent
expert on nonsense posted to Usenet.

--
                  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,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: usenet@news.cso.uiuc.edu (Net Noise owner)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has 
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:07:20 GMT

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cycle 3 in my corresponcence with Mark on fetal tissue
Date: 6 Jan 1993 16:58:39 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1993Jan6.225301.2016@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>Ya just don't get it, Mark.   Those organs were not the parents' to donate.
>Their baby was STILL USING THEM.   They were HERS, and HERS alone, and she
>had every right to keep them.  For pro-"choicers" who that like to talk big
>about people having the right to THEIR OWN bodies, this case shows them
>up particularly well as the hypocrites they are.

Uh, you did say "her" didn't you?  Well, if the pro-lifers have their way,
Suzanne, she won't be able to claim her WOMB is 'hers and hers alone', so 
why should you be able to claim in her stead (especially believing as you
apparently do) that her organs are hers and hers alone?  If the state can
commandeer a woman's womb, why not her corneas?  Why not her kidneys?
Why not her liver?  It's to *save a life*! after all.  So why not?

Adrienne Regard
>
>
>S. Forgach


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:41:56 GMT

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <C04xGM.Cpz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1hssu5INN270@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>>
>>>>Since you're so "pro-choice," how about letting Jeffery Dahmer eat you for
>>>>dinner if he wants to.  Hey, it's his body.
>>>>
>>>If Jeff Dahmer wants to eat his own body, I would not care, nor would
>>>I do anything to stop him. I wouldn't care to watch, but I would
>>>certainly agree that he should be allowed to eat himself if he wishes.
>>>You, on the other hand, seem to have a difficulttime comprehending the
>>>difference between what he does to his *own* body, and what is done to
>>>*another persons* body.
>>
>>Hacking a baby into pieces I think qualifies as attacking another person's
>>body.
>>
>I agree 100%! But what does this have to do with abortion? The issue
>was Jeff D. hacking and eating his *own* body, not some baby.
>Oh, let me guess... You're one of those who claims without any
>evidence to support it, that a z/e/f is actually a person?
>How sad...

I freely admit that a preborn baby human being is not LEGALLY defined
as a "person".  The moral and scientific evidence that it SHOULD be
defined as such has been beat to death already.  

>>Edward Simmonds- Sick of ignorance

>Good, I hope you're getting cured of it then.

Yep.  Every time I don't know if something you pro-aborters claim is true, 
I look it up to cure my ignorance, and to prove yours.

>--
>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
>These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
>your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
>Ghost of Elvis. So there.


Edward Simmonds

- standard disclaimers-

P. S. How come nobody hazes Mr. Cochran for his userid Merlin?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion