HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: What is Sex to God?
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:47:46 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20


  After some effort and confusion, I've finally found the Bible verses Gordon
was talking about where Jesus commands his disciples to hate their parents.
I'll type in the verse and context.

Luke 14:26 "If any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and 
            wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own 
	    life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Luke 14:27 "And whosoever does not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot
	   be my disciple."

 And now the verse I consider crucial to figuring out what this means:

Luke 14:28 "For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down
	    first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish
	    it?

 Luke 14:29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to
	    finish it, all that beholden it begin to mock him,

 Luke 14:30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish."

 14:31-32 give a similar example of a king wanting to make war with not enough
 soldiers.  Finally:

 Luke 14:33 "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all he 
	     hath, he cannot be my disciple."

  I read it thusly:  One could not become a disciple without first being
prepared to give up all that he had, "counting the cost."  It is not a
simple command to "hate your parents." It was a very honest observation
that following him was not going to be any kind of cakewalk.


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31626 alt.birthright:390 alt.abortion.inequity:3114
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Date: 14 Aug 92 04:26:13 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <Aug12.050053.21142@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Steven Arnold) writes:
>In article <1992Aug7.030454.2845@samba.oit.unc.edu>,
>Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>> In article <Aug06.051616.55747@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
>sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Steven Arnold) writes:
>> >> Pro-Choice           Anti-Roe                            - E.
>> >Elizabeth Bartley
>> >> 
>> >> Abortions should be safe, legal, rare, and early.
>> >
>> >	If every pro-choicer had this attitude, 75% of the pro-life movement
>> >would magically disappear within a year.
>> 	Don't be absurd.  The "pro-life" movement will not "disappear" as
>> long as abortion is legal.  And according to the pro-lifers who post here
>> regularly, abortion is murder at any time *after conception*.  "Early"
>> doesn't matter to them in the least.  I would think this would be obvious to
>> anyone reading this group for any length of time.
>
>	I would consider any abortion after conception as the taking of the
>life of a person.  But if it only happened a few thousand times a year,
>I could probably find more prevalent atrocities to attend to.  OK?  Just
>because abortions would still occur does not mean that more terrible
>things are not happening elsewhere, and if they were, no doubt my
>attention would turn to them more often and the percentage of my time
>devoted to abortion would decrease.
	Fair enough, although this means, in effect, that you're willing to
turn your attention away from what you believe to be a few thousand *murders*
per year.  My point is that even if you would behave this way, it is highly
unlikely that "75% of the pro-life movement" would follow suit.
	In any case, as I noted earlier, most pro-choicers (in my view) would
agree with Ms. Bartley's original slogan.  They just don't feel that the
"rare and early" part is best achieved through the mailed fist of the State,
thank you very much.
>
>Steve

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'


--
   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:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 00:07:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.225934.9289@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>
>-> You are the shame of the pro-choice contingent on
>-> this newsgroup.
>
>how do you know? name one person who supports choice
>who has so stated.

E. Elizabeth Bartley. 

Well, I shouldn't say THE shame of the pro-choice contingent. 

I believe she ranks Mark Kaufman one step worse than you. 

>-- 
>----
>charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.

===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation 
Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   And a Democrat to Boot | 
                           <<<=== Pro-Life ===>>> 
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Minutes of ba.t.a committee meeting
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:44:38 GMT

In article <ogafbr8@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>
>It flails and wails
>And writes bad email
>And acts like it's in a fog
>It's log, log, log!
>
>Log, log,
>it's big, it's heavy, it's wood.
>Log, log,
>it's better than bad, it's good.
>Everyone knows it's log--
>Steve's brain is a log.
>	(from Blammo!)
>

Steve Novak? Gee, Novak, yet another accurate description of you. 

>Oops.  Oh dear.  Like Alice Liddell, I must complain that the
>words seem to have come out all wrong.

I know, CJ. If you'd get off the Berkeley Flower (marijuana to the
rest of us), you'd get it right. 

>---
>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

Well, whaddya know, s/he/it's in Berkeley! 


===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WHO OWNS WHO?...or is it whom?...or what?
Date: 13 Aug 1992 11:23:43 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Aug13.155229.7513@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>  Ahem.  Every now and then I am reminded to dot my i's and cross my t's.
>Allow me to be painfully specific.  My real issue was with the words "ruin
>a person's life".  This implies that pregnancy will almost certainly "ruin" 
>your life physically, emotionally and financially.  

No, it implies that an unwanted pregnancy will almost certainly affect the
woman's life physically, emotionally and financially.

>  I was merely bringing Gordon's statement to heel.  Unwanted (or even wanted,
>for that matter) pregnancies CAN do all these things--with the effect of "ruin."
>But it is NOT a certainty.  Or highly likley.

How can you tell?

How can you, Jimmy, who have never sat through an unwanted pregnancy, tell
what is 'highly likely' with any certainty?  If I had to figure who would have
a better picture about this, you or a pregnant woman, I'd vote for the
pregnant woman.

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:56:49 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Aug12.224500.25686@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>But do not ever expect an organization devoted to providing
>alternatives to abortion to _ever_ aid someone in _obtaining_ an abortion.
>That's just garbage.

Which is why everyone should go to Planned Parenthood, which provides pre-natal
care as well as abortion (as well as a host of gynecological services) :-).

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)----------------
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: When counselling just ain't gonna cut it
Date: 17 Aug 92 05:01:02 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA

So both Bush and Quayle have said they would counsel members of their
family against abortion.  They have also stated they believe abortion
is murder.  So why just the counseling?  If you knew someone, friend
or member of your family were going to commit murder, wouldn't you 
take more extraordinary means than counselling to stop them.  

For you pro-lifers that believe abortion is murder:

Say a friend or family member comes to you and informs you that
they are going to get an abortion.  I would guess you would first 
try and reason with this person.  But what if reasoning doesn't 
change their mind?  Now to what length will you go to in order to
prevent your friend or family member from going through with this
heinous crime?
 
Would your answer change if abortion was illegal?
 
Would your answer change from the previous two if the friend or 
family member were talking about offing their born children?

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: More lies 
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 16:40:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.124614.6376@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

> The hope is that you will attempt to use more honest means to argue your
> point.  

Translation: The hope is that you will stop posting quotes which
support your arguments.  


>Dean Kaflowitz


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Myths and facts about Planned Parenthood
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 23:31:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.161333.3295@ncar.ucar.edu> ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.004156.2888@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
@ 
@ 	I saw one interesting omission:
@ 	There was no mention about masturbation.
@ 	Has PP ever promoted that as a safe form of sex?

>Sort of.  In the "Fact Book" section on abstinence, it notes:
>"Not having any touching between the penis and the vagina at all ever
>(total abstinence) works 100% of the time to keep you from getting 
>pregnant.  Many people who use this method show each other their
>feelings in other ways of touching."

>Presumably that includes oral sex and mutual masturbation. 

	I guess that's what they mean by "abstinence".

	Why don't they specify "non-contact sex"?

	Strictly speaking, even oral sex has some risk of STD
transmission.

	I do agree with PP, however, about the guaranteed safety of
non-contact sex (like masturbation or fully clothed "dry humping").
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:52:21 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Aug19.174332.20544@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.163139.22864@spdc.ti.com> 
>serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>
>> I have just recently subscribed and begun reading these groups.  I have never
>> seen to sides take such reactionary and extremist positions on any subject. 
>> We have the pro-choicers, who feel abortion is right and should be made 
>> available whenever and wherever a woman wants it.  Then, the pro-lifers at 
>> the other extreme who would eliminate the possibility of abortion for all 
>> circumstances.  Because of these extremist views I can safely say that I 
>> am either pro-life or pro-choice.  I will not support such extremist 
>> viewpoints. 
>
>I don't believe I've heard any self-proclaimed pro-lifer on this
>newsgroup say that they oppose all abortions.  Many pro-lifers have
>stated that they support exceptions for the life of the mother, and
>for rape and incest.  Pro-lifers don't agree on everything, but I
>don't think anyone would object if you called yourself pro-life.
>
>> I do not agree that a woman should not be allowed to an abortion in
>> cases of rape, incest, or where the mothers life is in danger.  
>
>That's a fairly popular position among pro-lifers.

Not an enormous problem for me, either. That _was_ my position when I
first went from pro-choice to pro-life, and though it's not my
position now, I do make it a practice not to alienate people whose
stand allows for hard cases. 

If that compromise were forced upon us tomorrow, 95% of all abortions
would be illegal in a minute, because rape & incest make up, at most,
5%.  

===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation 
Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   And a Democrat to Boot | 
                           <<<=== Pro-Life ===>>> 
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Night of the Living Kidney Analogy -- the Sequel
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:04:55 GMT

From article by tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child):
> In article rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
>>Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>>> [paraphrase:  parent not forced to donate kidney so no forced prenancy]
> 
>>The key word that makes the donation analogy fail is "continue".  The
>>support has already begun.  Can a kidney donor unilaterally decide to
>>take kidney back?
> 
> If I started to experience health problems (such as the remaining kidney 
> starting to fail), I sure as hell hope I could get it back.  Wouldn't you?

My husband is a probation officer and a couple of years ago he had a
probationer, who was on for a drug offense, who had in fact destroyed
his kidneys with his drugs.   So, his loving brother donated a kidney
to him.   By the time he was assigned to my husband's caseload, he had
already destroyed this donated kidney as well with his drug habit, and was
on CAPD self-dialysis, which takes ALOT of discipline as it is a 40 minute
sterile procedure, 4 times a day!   It's either that or die.  For the rest of
his life.  Because his brother has no more kidneys he can spare to donate
to him.

> --Teddi

Suzanne Forgach
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Does Bush oppose contraception?
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:07:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@redwood26


In article <16156@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, peerson@neyman.ucdavis.edu (Jan Peerson) writes:
> [My apologies if this turns up twice.]
> 
> The following is excerpted from the Garry Wills column which
> appeared on page B7 of the August 15, 1992 Sacramento Bee.  It is
> reproduced here (without permission) for your reading pleasure.
> 
>      We all know how Bush suddenly reversed himself on
>      abortion when he wanted to run with Ronald Reagan in
>      1980.  But his reversal on contraception and family
>      planning is less known.  Bush has surrendered even more
>      abjectly to the right wing on these issues.  The proof
>      of that is his appointment to the family planning post
>      in his administration of William R. Archer III, who
>      thinks the Griswold decision was wrong -- that is, that
>      the states should still have the power to ban the sale
>      of contraceptives.
> 
>      To put such a man in such a post is like making a
>      pacifist the secretary of defense.  How do you promote
>      family planning while opposing the government's
>      permission to sell contraceptives?  Archer's preferred
>      solution to the family planning problem -- as well as
>      to AIDS and abortion and teenage promiscuity -- is
>      abstinence.
> 
>      Unlike most right-wing moralists who rely on
>      abstinence, he practices what he preaches.  As a 37-
>      year-old bachelor who tells others to refrain from sex,
>      he was challenged at a family planning clinic in
>      Denver, asked if he abstains from sex himself.  He
>      answered yes, though he admitted to having tried sex
>      six years earlier and regretting it.

He abstains, except when he doesn't.  What a great example of
"do as I say, not as I do".

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Jeeez!  (was Re: Creating Real Choices)
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 03:09:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug9.171806.1354@athena.cs.uga.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
>	Well.   I honestly couldn't have predicted that such a
>brouhaha could stem from my employing the distinction of "pro-choice"
>versus "pro-abortion".  I hope I'm safe in trusting that most people
>understood what I meant by the two terms, and I doubt I could have

This morning, on KQED's local talk show, Kevin Pursglove had a representative
from the ABA (American Bar Association) on and they were talking about the
recent decision of the ABA to support choice.

The woman (I can't remember her name) made the point that pro-choice *is*
the middle ground, the compromise stance -- as the opposite of pro-life is
forced abortion.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

... And malt does more than Milton can
To justify God's ways to man
		-- A. E. Housman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: the weight of evidence
Summary: Chaney's weightless.
Organization: OR Busters (just up the street)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 11:56:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.110540.12146@crd.ge.com> keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>within 24 hours, dan king and dean kaflowitz post that
>chaneyhall is a liar.

Is that any surprise, since Chaney practically begged them to do so?
I'd say zapping him is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel, but I don't
want to insult any fish...

>they both state this on separate issues.
>
>i believe them without a shred of doubt.

Ditto.  I wonder how Dick Smith will react to Chaney's latest statement
about what Smith will do to Roby if he "lies" about Chaney again?
Mr. Smith will be getting notice of Chaney's ravings in e-mail in the next
15 minutes or so, and we'll see...I suspect he's not going to be real
pleased with one of his students putting words in his mouth.

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

                  All wiyht, rho sritched mg keg tops awound?
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:16:51 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <oqvv1pk@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>---
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) suggests
>a moderated t.a group...
>
>It'll never fly, kiddo.  Moderating t.a is like trying to
>moderate alt.flame, or talk.politics.misc.  The sludge and
>anger you see here reflects the sludge and anger out in the
>real political world.  

Only partly true. A lot of the posturing and righteous indignation seen here 
would evaporate if the principals actually faced each other face-to-face.
The nature of the Usenet medium itself -creates- many of these apparent 
hostilities. A lot of it would disappear if there was a wise & diligent 
moderator working to keep things on track, I believe.

Finding and installing that wise & diligent moderator, however, is likely to 
be an extremely difficult task, if not an impossible one.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another great reason to vote for Bush
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:29:39 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Aug16.183946.5674@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) said:
>In article <FOX.92Aug15221336@graphics.nyu.edu> 
>fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>
>> I'm just saying that it is not murder to withold assistance to
>> another human being.  
>
>Ripping a child apart with a powerful vacuum pump is 
>certainly not the same thing as "witholding assistance".  
>You are terribly ill-informed about abortion methods.

Apparently so are you.  No child is ripped apart during an abortion.


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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion