HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Using the Bible with non-Christians?
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:48:29 GMT

warren@pws.ma30.bull.com (Warren Lavallee) writes:

> Are there any professing "Pro-Choice" Christians out there?

*POOF* Chris Lyman, pro-choice Christian, at your service!

> Christian (in the above sentence) being some who meets the following
> Scriptures:  (this is NOT meant to be an all inclusive definition)

[--Biblical citations deleted--]

Warren, nobody agrees 100% as to what constitutes a "true Christian."

> Does anyone else other than me feel it is foolish to be talking about
> abortion from a Biblical perspective with non-Christians?

Almost all the non-Christians certainly do.  Doesn't their opinion count?

> They don't believe in Jesus Christ.  They don't believe the Bible.  They will
> argue using the Bible because we believe it and they think it gives them power
> over us.

Where do get an idea like that, Warren?  To a non-believer, Warren, using the
Bible as authority for _anything_ is as relevant as using a Sears catalog.

> However without being a Christian, they can NOT understand the Bible.
> The Bible is a spiritual book that you can only understand fully when you
> have the Holy Spirit.

There are Christians of all different stripes, Warren.  For instance, I can't
say that I _have_ the Holy Spirit.  From time to time, though, I've been aware
that Holy Spirit has _me_.  Yikes! :-)

[--citation from I Corinthians deleted--]

> They profess to be under no authority (in actuality they are: the
> prince of the power of the air), so we can't do they same thing to them.

At best, that's a silly thing to say.  Plus, you're pulling words out of thin
air and attributing them to non-Christians.

> They admit no absolutes, no matter what we say, it seems to bounce off them.

And, of course, moral absolutes _never_ conflict with one another, right?

> How do you argue values with someone who has no values?

This is not only silly, it's ad hominem.  Try again.

> If we want to discuss it with them, we need to do it (IMHO) from a worldly
> view point (never forgetting what God says of course.).

> With facts.  Facts come right against the lies that the enemy is using. 
> Facts can be verified in the world.

I try my level best to make my pro-choice arguments as fact-based as possible,
thank you.  Btw, you may not be too happy to learn what the Good Book actually
specifically says about abortion.  Check out Steve Adams' article about 
Numbers 5:12-31.

> What do christians think?

I think it's time for lunch.  After lunch, I might start writing a fantasy,
"Suzanne Forgach Ascends To Heaven," if I have time.  How's that for a Peter
Nyikos-style teaser? :-)

[--fabulous citation from Isaiah deleted--]

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
      "When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President.
       Now I'm beginning to believe it." -- Clarence Darrow
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:57:56 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->The proponents of consent and/or notification laws did not kill
->Becky Bell. 

for a person who so casually tosses inferences about,
you seem to be having a lot of trouble dealing with the
concept of responsibility. becky bell might very well
be alive today were there not a consent/notification
law. who knows how many others that remark might be
applied to.

->Some of us (proponents) have daughters of our own
->whose health and safety we are responsible for.  

and some of us have daughters who we trust to make the
best decision for themselves. perhaps the difference is
a matter of upbringing.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 14:17:58 GMT

In <lefty-131092110616@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com 
   (Lefty) writes: > 
In article <1992Oct12.215528.3631@acd4.acd.com>, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) wrote: >

>> Based on your incisive analysis, it probably wasn't a good 
>> analogy.  How about this:  When a drug user buys and ingests a
>> substance cut with rat poison and subsequently dies, are the
>> anti-drug laws to blame? 
>
> In point of fact, I believe that they contribute substantially 
> to the blame.

"Lefty" wouldn't, by any chance, be a reference to your 
political (rather than neurological) orientation, would 
it?  :-)

>[...]

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-aborts who reduce women to fetal containers (was Responsibility
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:54:54 GMT

In article <Bw2oIo.Mz7.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> People who support a woman's right to decide for herself on the issue of
> abortion aren't ignoring the woman's reasons, they're accepting
> whatever reason the woman may have.  

They're saying that a woman can kill a human being as long as that
human being resides within her body.  They completely ignore the 
woman's actual reasons for wanting an abortion, and focus only on 
the location of the fetus in relation to the woman.  They attempt 
to reduce pregnant women to fetal containers. 

> The only people who quibble
> about which particular reason applies in a given case are those
> who believe that women shouldn't be trusted with important
> decisions.

Women should be trusted with important decisions.  But society doesn't
have to respect their desires to have other human beings killed.  


>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: The Forgach-Nyikos duet
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:43:18 GMT

> = (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>> = (Susan Garvin):

>>> that she devalues motherhood, and
>>> that she's the most twisted person on the net?

>>Adrienne herself proves these with every post she makes.

>I'm hurt. I thought *I* had your vote for the most twisted person on
>the net.

While you and Adrienne fight it out, I'll sit back smugly knowing that
*I'm* Suzanne's ONLY choice for "most bigotted and racist".

Eat your heart out.
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:43086 talk.politics.misc:52517 alt.sex:33205 alt.rush-limbaugh:7658 alt.politics.elections:17364 alt.politics.clinton:11043 alt.politics.bush:9530
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:13:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Armory

In article <BvoBDz.BLL@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
>: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
>: MW:Legal definition only.  It can be changed at any time by an act of 
>: MW:congress.
>: 
>: SO:Such an act would be (or should be) beyond Congress' power.  The STATES
>: SO:have the authority to write criminal law.  With the exception
>: SO:of treason, and "interstate/international" crimes (ex: kidnapping
>: SO:across state lines, smuggling), the federal government does not have
>: SO:the authority to legislate criminal laws.
>: 
>: Then why does congress feel it has the power to declare that the states
>: do not have the right to limit abortions.
-------------------
It is reserved to the federal government the right to make laws which
protect the uniformity of the basic rights of the citizens of all the
states. It is not in the power of the Congress to take them away
against the ruling of the Supreme Court, which has not overturned Roe,
and likely never will, now. Clinton in '92, or slavery for women by
2000!
- Steve

-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:30:53 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>My understanding is that this is exactly what happens in the overwhelming
>majority of abortions past the first trimester (of which there are over
>400 a day in the USA), where the method used is known as D&E but should
>really be called D&D&E: Dilation, Dismemberment, and Evacuation.

Peter dear, your language here could be construed as misleading. The
terms "vast majority of abortions" implies that it is just that, a vast
majority, while the following phrase "past the first trimester", a phrase
overshadowed into virtual meaninglessness by the gravity of the preceeding
phrase, indicates that this is a relative minority of abortions done
per year, less than 10% as a matter of fact. I expect better of a logician
and mathemetician than statements which obfuscate the facts so terribly
in an obvious ploy to grab the emotions of the reader.

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.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: True Story: How Pro-Lifers Try To Gain Support
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:51:16 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>Isn't it wierd that you pro-choicers applaud the acts of ACT-UP but
>yet you abhor it when Operation Rescue pulls a stunt? You pro-choice
>vacuum-heads are known for your double-standards.

Pardon?!? How can you compare peaceful actions to those bordering on
terrorist actions? OR definitely uses force to get their way. Do you
have any accounts of ACT-UP doing so? Or have they only been seen to
sing or otherwise disrupt speeches and such?

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: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:41:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.111052.14459@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>>>Approximately 98% of abortions in America are done for social reasons.
>>>>Now do these social reasons take precedence over destroying human life?
>>>
>>>Sanctimonious hypocrite.  Why don't you give all of your money to save
>>>the lives of people who are starving?  After all, getting an
>>>education, reading t.a., watching TV, and the like are also just
>>>"social" reasons.  
>>
>>Abortion is active killing.  I don't think anyone is intentionally starving
>>people.  If anyone was actively starving people, I would want to do
>>something to help, no doubt about it.
>
>So then, you willingly let people die on one hand, while inflicting
>hardship to prevent death on the other hand, and claim this to be a
>morally superior stance?
>
>This is the most disgusting thing I've seen in a while.
>

I never said anything about letting people die.

Abortion involves active killing by a human individual.  Starving may
or may not involve active starvation by human individuals.  Abortion
is a means, the end is the death of a human.  Starvation is a state,
the means may or may not be brought on INTENTIONALLY by certain human
individuals.  What gov't can do is to prevent the means, the active 
killing of humans.  If starvation is an active action by certain human
individuals, then gov't can step ion an stop the means.  It is doable.

In any case, preventing the means, and solving the state are two 
different problems.

>>>Do _your_ social reasons take precedence over human
>>>life?
>>
>>If my social reasons are directly starving certain people (like me buying
>>a better car at the expense of not getting my son or daughter some food)
>>then my social reasons are definitely not going to take precedence over
>>the life of my son or daughter.
>>
>>BTW, Your lovely use of colorful metaphors is slowly catching on.  However,
>>you still haven't mastered the art yet.  Good luck! :)
>
>Here's some bad news for you.  They aren't metaphors.  They are quite
>real.  30,000 people starve to death each DAY.  That's one every three
>seconds.  Done anything about it?

I was talking about 'Sanctimonius Hypocrite' and such.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1992 19:28:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <Bvrovt.4n1@nic.umass.edu>  csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>
> Gee, then the man participating in coitus sex, who also is responsible
> for "putting" the "child" there, should also be required to forfiet his
> life to bring this z/e/f into existance???  Or is he under a different set
> of rules?  This argument asks a woman to pay the ultimate price, but men
> get off scott free.

Child support.  The woman pays with her life; the man with his wallet.
See, your question implied that the life of a woman was worth as much
as the life of a man.

> I guess all MEN really were created equal.

Oh - I see you *do* understand.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Trumped-up charges against Suzanne. Demurrer #1.
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 07:31:38 GMT

<26410@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <26094@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
[Peter's ad-hominum remark to Ron deleted]
>>I wouldn't bother telling this to the likes of Gordon, but I expected
>>better of you, Ron.
>
>Gordon, a fine honest fellow. Haven't personally experienced any thing
>bad or wrong about Gordon, and he even grudgingly admitted once (publicly)
>that my correction to one of his statements was correct, albeit in a
>very general fashion. 

When I'm wrong I try to admit it early.  I don't recall our
misunderstanding, but I hope I was sincere.

>                      He doesn't believe himself infallible, as certain
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^
Hey!  Whatdya mean??!! ;-)

>other posters here do, although he is correct much of the time. Now,
>Larry is probably the only one I've seen who is correct all the times
>that I've seen him make some incredible statements. That's a good record,
>imo. As for me, trust me.

I've got this great time-share on Kuaui I'd like to sell you... :-)


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
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.
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Fri,  9 Oct 1992 15:59:49 -0400 
From: "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Distribution: usa

An epsilon is a greek letter. That I already knew. But it's also a:
an arbitrarily small positive quantity in mathematical analysis.
pg 420 Web. 9th New Collegiate Dict.

In context it has no meaning at all.

I had a good belly laugh when I read the definition.

ag
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 13:54:43 GMT

gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>Maybe I should give up the sig.  People just have no sense of humor.  What
>does everyone think, eh?

Gordon without his .sig?  No way.  Tell the morons who don't get it to get
lost...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Threats?
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:11:56 GMT

lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes ...
>In article <nyikos.718031409@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:

>If your mathematics papers display the intellectual rigor you've brought to
>this newgroup, it would be astonishing that you could manage to remain
>employed in your field.

He didn't - he's a professor.   :-)




(Apologies to the many decent professors out there, but it's an old
joke, and I couldn't resist such an opening)

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Defying Physics (Re: In Suzanne's Defense)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 16:04:54 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <1992Oct9.191443.11469@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
 
Personally I don't much care when "human life" begins.  Give a sperm, ovum, 
zygote, embryo, fetus all the rights you want.  Call them whatever you
want, I don't much care.  They don't have the right to inhabit anyones
body against that person's will.  However, just 'cause I feel like it,
I thought I'd respond to part of Martin's post.
 
>So let us assume that the assertion that eggs/sperm = human life (members
>of homo sapiens) with the added assumption that the eggs and the sperm
>are two different human lives.  Since this is true, then at conception,
>two different human lives come together.  But the problem is, you are
>exactly one human entity.  So how can two separate human lives produce
>exactly one human entity? 

It really isn't all that difficult of a concept.  Haploid life does 
not merge and continue to be haploid life.  Two haploid life merge
to form diploid life.  They do this to reproduce.  Since they can not
reproduce alone, the merging of the two haploid life is needed so they 
can continue their species.  You have two haploid life that merge to
create diploid life which then it turn creates more haploid life.  
What happens is you have two separate haploid humans getting together 
to form a diploid human so as to create many more haploid humans.  
You choose to use force of law to give the diploid human life a higher
value than the haploid human life.  Some would call this bigotry.  

>Didn't we say that it is not possible to 
>be exactly two humans at one exact time?  

Did "we" really say that?

>From two human lives, there
>results only one human life.  This cannot be.  

Sure it can.  Open your mind.  The haploid life merge to reproduce
countless more haploid life.  The diploid life that you hold in
such high regard is only a temporary vessel for creating many more
haploid human lives.  I can understand your fear of this theory.
Many people would be afraid to consider themselves just tools of
their own genitalia.  But it need not devalue our existence.  We
should just understand our place in reproduction.  

>How can Joe Blow merge
>with Susan Parker (random name) to produce Joe Parker only?
 
Huh?  Lets go slow.  Lets say we have Joe Haploid and Susan Haploid.
They unite together and create Fred Diploid.  After an incubation
period, when Fred Diploid reaches puberty, Fred begins reproducing
more Haploid life.  This is how Joe Haploid and Susan Haploid 
reproduce more of their species.  Fred Diploid's purpose in this 
scenario was to continue the haploid species. 

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: Logically speaking, Bush must issue an exec order!
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:44:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.152845.401@news2.cis.umn.edu> prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>Just for the sake of argument, let us go along with Bush and his
>fellow conservatives on this issue!
>
>If they consider a foetus to have the rights that are due to
>an individual, then does not logic assert that they should
>be treated as such for tax purposes also. I just heard that
>a woman filed a suit against IRS claiming exemption for her
>foetus.
>
>If Bush really believes in his stance, he should direct the IRS
>to grant exemptions to all pregnant women!
>
>What say you?
>
>satya {Prabhaakr

Well, it seems as if we should afford some tax exemptions on pregnant
women and their families.  Sounds like a pretty decent idea, actually.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion