HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:53:40 -0400 
From: Thomas Oligino <to0b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Abortion is a SIN against God!

> 
>Killing babies, born or unborn, is a sin against the God that made
>everything and everyone.  Children are a heritage from the Lord to be
>trained and nurtured to worship and glorify Him.
> 
>Woe unto the butchers and the ones that support them.
> 
>"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and
>whormongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have
>their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is
>the second death"  Rev 21:8
> 
>"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
>cometh unto the Father, but by me"  John 14:6
> 
>"The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in
>flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey
>not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with
>everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory 
>of his power;"  2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
> 
>I will answer no flames or mockers. 
> 
>=========================================================================
>David L. Hanson

Boy am I impressed! If only I had read these excerpts from this really
old piece of fiction sooner. 

Oh sorry, Im mocking but you really do deserve it.
 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Why id DearOldDoug both AntiSemtic, and AntiChristian?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 08:09:51 GMT

dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] 
]      "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
] 
] 
] We need to get more pro-abortionists to make statements like these.
] Then more people will realize how dangerous and extreme their ideas are.
 

Doug,

So Doug, just because you are an Atheist,
and have no respect for God, or God's Word,
is this any reason to be an AntiAbortionist?

Why do you Hate those who wish to follow the
Word of God clearly Laid down in the bible?


ciao
drieux


 


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Bill, admit the point before changing the subject.
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 19:36:53 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:

>In <1992Jul23.173602.13879@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com 
>   (Charles Don Hall) writes: >

>>When I said "unwanted", I meant it in the sense of "that which is not
>>wanted". If a woman wants to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, then
>>I'm certainly not going to get involved.

>Abortion wouldn't be the more responsible choice in that scenario?

When has the pro-choice movement ever expressed a desire to legislate
against irresponsible choices?

>>No, you don't get it. The burden on these caretakers is self-imposed.

>Really?  When my grandmother died, her will included a provision 
>for her assets to be established as a trust for the care of my
>aunt (one of her daughters), who suffers from a chronic form of 
>schizophrenia.  My other aunt (my father is dead, so she was the
>only surviving sibling) was named as caretaker.  Does her role
>seem "self-imposed" to you?  It sure didn't to her.

Was your grandmother's wish legally binding upon your aunt?  Did
your aunt have ANY option at all to turn the responsibility over
to anyone else?  If not, I would be interested to know under what
law this is justified, because it is a law I would not support.

If options existed which _would_ allow your aunt to decline this
responsibility, then it was indeed self-imposed.

>>If they don't want to care for their charges, then can turn them over
>>to the government. In the US, the 14th Amendment (prohibiting 
>>involuntary servitude) guarantees this right. 

>It's not quite that simple.  The government will likely take legal
>steps to exact payment for the support of the abandoned person. 

I wasn't aware that there existed a legal obligation to support one's
own parents.  I would find this greatly disturbing.  I once worked
briefly in a nursing home, and I recall _many_ bitter patients 
complaining that their children had so much money, but never gave them
a dime.  I would think that if such a law existed, nursing homes would
be in the legal forefront demanding money from children.

If this law exists, how does it work?  Are any children equally
responsible?  May parents attach the estates of children to pay
the parents' bills?  Are they given equal priority to their 
grandchildren in support considerations?
 
           [...]

>>On the other hand, you seem to believe that it is permissible for
>>the contents of a woman's womb to be declared "property of the state",
>>and therefore that no absolute right to bodily autonomy can exist. 
>>Can you see what a dangerous precedent this can set?

>Yes, I really can.  That is as abhorrent to me as the bottom of the
>right to privacy slope.  Both extremes are scary.  

Then why take the ugly step of legislation?

>Bill

                     -rocker
From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!))
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro Choice Election Strat
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:01:52 GMT
Organization: The Reality Liberation Front (pixels to the people!)

btwomey@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (william.tw0mey) writes:
>
>Should pro-choice imply anti-"War on Drugs"?  Keep in mind that
>a war on drug abuse should be a separate matter.

     I've always wanted to go down to a pro-choice rally and hand out
pamphlets reminding them that the slogan "Keep your laws off my body" should
apply to the WoSD too. 

===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@flubber.cs.umd.edu| "Born to die" | Keep your laws off my brain!
     "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe 
          This is a .signature antibody. Vaccinate your .sig!
"But as records of courts and justice are admissible, it can easily be proved
 that powerful and malevolent magicians once existed....The evidence...is still
 unimpeachable.  The judges' decisions...were sound in logic and in law. Nothing
 in any existing court was ever more thoroughly proved than the charges of
 witchcraft and sorcery for which so many suffered death.  If there were no
 witches, human testimony and human reason are alike destitute of value."
 -- Ambrose Bierce
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:28520 alt.politics.homosexuality:5143
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: What *is* Homophobia (formerly: SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS...)
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:35:25 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Jul23.075050@wsl.dec.com> gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:

>In article <1992Jul23.012328.16153@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>|> I find it pretty strange to see people advocating something designed for
>|> something totally unrelated -- birth control --, as a method of desease
>|> control!
>|> 
>|> Don'tcha get it?  Condoms were _never_designed_ to stop a virus millions of
>|> times smaller than a sperm.    WhatEVER gives you the idea that it would??
>|> 
>|> 

>Please cite your source for information on virology and
>the manufacturing of plastics.

     Dear George,

     Don't hold your breath,

                         MP


>If the condom passes the electricity test (insulation) then
>electrons (which are smaller than viruses) cannot pass through it.

>Logic isn't one of your better subjects is it ?

>Later,
>George
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: I'm a bit pissed...
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:19:54 GMT


Recently I implied that Mr. Clausen was either disgusting or stupid for his 
assertion that "abortion stops a beating heart."  I pointed out that in the 
majority of abortions there wasn't even a heart to stop beating.  The 
initial intent of my reaction was one of being a bit tired of assertions that
have little basis in truth, since then it has exposed that many of the people
who read and/or post to this group are woefully ignorant as to what constitutes
an abortion.  

I looked in a bunch of medical dictonaries, and several regular ones at that,
and without execption none of them mentioned a heart even in passing as a 
condition of abortion.  The most common description was one of "expulsion of
products of conception."  Oodles of types of abortion were mentioned, with
all kinds of modifiers, as a matter of fact, the text following "abortion"
often ran onto another page or column, depending on the format of the 
particular dictionary.  Just one of those types, which I think Ms. Regard
mentioned as 30% being the low figure and 60% being the high figure has no
heart involved whatsoever.

Mr. Porter (Don Porter -- if I say the name enough, will he respond?) asserted
that Mr. Clausen was stating a simple fact.  I responded (at least twice) that
Mr. Porter must be unclear as to his conception of abortion.  It is not a
fact (simple or complex) that abortion stops a beating heart.  Mr. Kellmeyer
jumped in, and to his credit said that *surgical* abortion stops a beating
heart.  However neither Mr. Porter nor Mr. Clausen have responded.  

I don't really care when fetal heartbeat begins, but quite simply abortion 
does not stop a beating heart.  Indeed, there are many abortions in which
absolutely no heart is involved.   Asserting that "abortion stops a beating
heart" is rather like saying that "airplane crashes kill people."  Sure, some
crashes kill people, others every passenger and the pilot walk away from (they
are called landings).

Mr. Clausen -- Mr. Porter -- have you anything to say?  Or you hoping this 
subject will go away and die?

It sure seems to me that the people who would legislate against (in this 
case) abortion don't know what the hell they are talking about.

--
       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: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Organization: You ought to know by now.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 06:47:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.004219.7657@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon):
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>
>>>If an adult teacher at the front of a classroom sneering and smirking as
>>>his/her child pupils roll condoms on and off cucumbers, isn't adult/child sex,
>>>what the hell is?   If you filmed it, you'd have a porno movie!
>> 
>> Do you really believe this is how teachers behave?
>> 
>> Do you really believe that a movie of someone sneering and smirking as a
>> latex condom is placed on a cucumber is pornographic?
>
>I really believe that handing children condoms and training them to
>roll them on and off cucumbers and bananas is for the sole purpose of
>desensitizing them to casual, random, and public, sex,   so that they
>will be far more likely to participate in it.

So tell me, just how is it those kids in the late '60s got involved with all
the "free love" and such movements, when they didn't *have* sex education in
the schools a few years prior to that time?  Could it possibly be that kids
are being taught sex in a manner your little cult doesn't approve of?

>(Anyway, what is pornography but public sex?)

It's religious wackos like you who have no qualms about forcing their morals
on everyone else -- in my book, *that's* pornographic.  Your mileage will,
in all probability, vary.

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 919 856-1670 -- never mind.

              Hit this .sig and win a free trip to Dewalt, Texas!
From: tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I'm a bit pissed...
Summary: Help!  I'm trapped in this newsgroup!
Keywords: I just spent the last 6 hours reading this damn newsgroup.
Date: 28 Jul 92 09:28:38 GMT
Organization: None at this point in time

In article <hbmm1db.ray@netcom.com> (Ray Fischer) writes:
>In an article (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>>FACT: The human heart beat does not begin at birth. It begins 3-4
>>weeks after fertilization.

Which means...?  (We can have heart transplants.  The owner of the heart is
"dead", maybe, but the beat goes on.  ie:  it doesn't necessarily signal
being alive or not)

>>FACT: Surgical abortions, in 90-100% of all cases, are carried out
>>after that.

I'll buy that.  What's your point?

>>FACT: (Surgical) abortions stop a beating heart just as surely as a
>>loaded handgun.

Only if you CHOOSE to get an abortion, (or only if you choose to pull the
trigger.  And aim it at someone.  And hit them in a vital area.  And then
they might not surely die.  [No, I'm wrong--they will die, but won't we
all?)

>>FACT: You lost this battle. 

I wouldn't make unfounded leaps of logic...

>FACT: Whether a heart is stopped during an abortion is utterly irrelevent.
>      People have known that personality, feelings, and thoughts don't reside
>      in the heart for quite some time now.

(So, I guess RU486 would be a much better alternative, as your "beating
heart" ["to show life"] test would not suffice.)


-Richard
Please, cut down on the posting!  I can barely keep up!
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Did Clinton embrace the pro-life position??
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:42:57 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>> = (Doug Holtsinger):

Although both Frau F. and DOD have been raosted for these statements
numerous times, there are some things I wish to say about this particular
post Frau F. made.

>>>   "Take responsibility for your children, or we will force you to do so."
>>>    -- Bill Clinton, speaking at the Democratic National Convention

>>You noticed that too, did you.

>No, Holtsinger thought it had to do with abortion.  He "noticed" out
>of context.

This displays the ignorance or malicious deception that both DOD and
Frau F. will go to. The quote refered to children, not fetuses, which
both willfully ignored so that they could gleefully point out that some
pro-choice candidate said something supporting them when their twisted
version of the English dictionary is used to define terms. It also shows
how these two comrades wish to tie lack of love for lumps of flesh to
lack of love for children. They do not wish to believe that pro-choicers
could deeply love their children, as they obviously cannot contemplate
the antogonizing chaos of feelings that a woman faces when she considers
an abortion (whatever they may say, most women do face an agonizing situation
when they have to decide whether or not they should have an abortion).
I guess this makes it easier (read convenient) for their campaign against
abortion.

>>My mom saw the incident on the news, of the pro-lifers who approached
>>Bill Clinton in New York to show him the body of the dead fetus.  She
>>said that such a dark cloud suddenly passed over his face, that she was
>>immediately struck with the question of how many abortions Jennifer
>>Flowers has had.

I wonder what your mom (or you) would do if someone tried to hand you
a calf liver out on the street that reeked of formaldehyde. Might a
"cloud" cross her(your) face too? Would we immediately wonder how many
calves you had abused and slaughtered? (This is only to indicate how
deranged such a thought is)

>Where does your mom get this stuff?  Sure explains your same ability to be
>so out of touch with reality, and to lie pathologically:  Mom taught you well.

Steve, I think someone so out of touch with reality cannot teach anyone
anything, so it must be genetic, as all the public school system did
was teach her how to write (the physical placing of letters on screen,
not the logical connection of the words formed by those letters into
whole ideas and sensible paragraphs) and how to do cursory reading,
although in depth comprehension seems to elude her still.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: PP executive says "personhood...begins a month after birth"
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.
Keywords: : w $articles/scandal.pp - this has been archived!
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 01:40:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.161854.15664@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

[Deleted:  Yet another "religious view on personhood"...]

Actually, I think this just shows that the _only_ place an abortion decision
should be allowed to be made is with the pregnant woman.

Not with the pro-lifers, not with the pro-choicers, but with the single,
pregnant, woman who is going to have to live with her decision to have the
"WarmCuteFuzzyUnbornBaby" not...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="I want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Chaney lies again (OK, so it's _not_ news)
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:32:58 GMT

<1992Jul27.223323.8679@csus.edu> (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>> In Florida, a circuit court Judge said that laws forbidding adults
>> from screwing little girls, is unconstitutional because it violates
>> the right to privacy that nullifies parental consent abortion laws. 

<xbmm4hc.ray@netcom.com> (Ray Fischer) writes:
> So, you go from a case about consensual sex between a 15 year old
> and a 19 year old, to claiming it's a case about sex between an adult
> and a 12 year old, to claiming the case is about adults screwing
> little girls?

In fairness to Chaney, unless Florida law recognizes some difference
in the right to privacy of a 12-year-old and the right to privacy
of a 15-year-old, then the recent ruling would appear to reduce
the age of consent for sex to the same age as the age of abortion
rights.

Are 12 year olds are recognized as having abortion rights in
Florida?  If so, and if I understand the recent ruling, then
12 year olds have the right to consent to sex without interference
of the State.

Of course, the whole matter is being appealed, so there's little
that's definite here.

|   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._________________________________|
From: boutell@cshl.org (Tom Boutell)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WANT YOUR OPINION HEARD?
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:42:56 GMT
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

In article <1992Jul27.004705.21740@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>If you REALLY cared about getting some decent material for your magazine,
>you'd comb t.a for promising authors and lines of discussion...

A reasonable suggestion, one which I think I'll investigate. I got
entangled in the Chaney debate and lost track of the obvious.
Thanks.

>That might be a much more productive strategy than pitching to people's
>rivalry/competitiveness/shame or whathaveyou...

Actually that tactic has been modestly successful, but you're correct,
I'm much more likely to find good material by seeking out folks
who are *already* writing good material.

>								- Kevin


-- 
Tom Boutell (Editor, VOICE Magazine)
boutell@cshl.org
Believe it or not there is life after college. At least if you live
near NYC.
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I'm a bit pissed...
Date: 28 Jul 92 04:14:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>FACT: The human heart beat does not begin at birth. It begins 3-4
>weeks after fertilization. 
>FACT: Surgical abortions, in 90-100% of all cases, are carried out
>after that. 
>FACT: (Surgical) abortions stop a beating heart just as surely as a
>loaded handgun. 
>FACT: You lost this battle. 

FACT: Whether a heart is stopped during an abortion is utterly irrelevent.
      People have known that personality, feelings, and thoughts don't reside
      in the heart for quite some time now.

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion is a SIN against God!
Date: 21 Jul 1992 17:02:51 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Jul20.202431.13636@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> dhanson@nyx.cs.du.edu (David L. Hanson) writes:

>Killing babies, born or unborn, is a sin against the God that made
>everything and everyone.  Children are a heritage from the Lord to be
>trained and nurtured to worship and glorify Him.

I don't suppose that you can provide any emperical evidence for this
mythological god of yours.

>Woe unto the butchers and the ones that support them.

Yea right. I'm shaking in my boots.

[drivel deleted]

>I will answer no flames or mockers. 

wimp

>=========================================================================
>David L. Hanson

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter       ----         GS1260 Suzuki drag bike  *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion