HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Creating Real Choices
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:52:53 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Jul28.031740.161822@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu writes:

> In article <1992Jul27.214810.7132@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> 
> [text deleted, before and after - I just wanted to save some of
> the tone of Chaney's rant]
> 
> #For pro-lifers, WRT joining these efforts, safety only comes in
> #numbers, Mr. Miller. Those folks are out there to slam, humiliate,
> #degrade, and downright make life hard for you. Make no mistake about
> #it - when pro-lifers enter something new, they should go in numbers if
> #they have any sense to them, or else they'll get chewed. 
> 
[deletion]
> The meeting was disrupted, sadly, by a group of anti-abortion
> fanatics who could not restrain themselves from marching
> to the podium and displaying a fetus.
> Susan

  Both of these posts only prove what we already know--fanaticism is not
conducive to rational, problem-solving, and mutually beneficial solutions.
Both sides could use a lesson in manners.  But anybody who reads this group
already knows that.

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 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: When did Christianity repudiate the Old Testament?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 03:09:27 GMT

HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
] 
] If, on the
] other hand, you meant it for Christian bible-thumpers (which is how I most
] often hear the term "bible-thumper" used), then MY point is still valid, and
] quoting Old Testament to a Christian is like quoting the Articles of 
] Confederation to the US under the Constitution.  As a parent document, it is 
] worthy of study and examination, but it is not the law of the land.
] 
] semper fi,


When did God recind the Old Testament?

Upon What Basis are you gutting the Bible?

and to what have you remained faithful?


ciao
drieux

ps: go tell it to the marines, the navy ain't buying it.



-- 
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,alt.birthright
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: One sure way to prevent a teen abortion? (was Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 19:15:13 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Summary: Chaney proves that pro-forcers' concern ends at birth
Followup-To: talk.abortion



In article <1992Jul27.161324.26015@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:


#Well, Steve Novak, how's about this: 
#
#Some parents have VERY strong feelings about their daughters not
#having abortions. 
#Some parents resort to illegal means by issuing threats. 
#
#But what if they resorted to legal means to circumvent the pro-choice
#movement's undying quest to nullify parental authority? 
#
#Why, a parent could, upon being told that their daughter is pregnant,
#threaten to drop her off at a home for unwanted children if she has an
#abortion. 
#That's no slight inconvenience for anyone; the daughter would be
#devastated, and she would have no legal action against her parents.
#She'd just be out of a home.
#And where would the NARAL & Planned Parenthood be, then? They won't
#house her. She'll be just an insignificant casualty in this war. Or,
#as they say, "Another one bites the dust." 
#
#But the parents would strike the last and final blow in the issue, and
#the next daughter would more likely either not get pregnant or not
#even consider abortion. 
#
#
#Sure, the tactics are heavy handed, but anything is fair in war,
#and as the pro-choicers like to say, IT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL TO DO IT. 

Well, thanks, Dennis.

In a single article, you have shown your complete lack of
compassion for pregnant teenagers (proving that at least
one pro-forcer here on the net really doesn't care about
children or women, only about fetuses) and provided an
excellent argument for doing away with parental involvement
laws.  

(To inject a little reality into your most recent fantasy,
I should tell you that parents may not not simply drop
their children off at an "unwanted children's home" without
legal repercussions.  I should also tell you that
the scenario you describe is all too common in the real
world, and most normal people find it a despicable solution.
You would not prevent any future pregnancies in the family,
you would merely guarantee that the other young women
would not discuss their pregnancy with their parents.
I would imagine that the vast majority of all judges would
readily grant a judicial bypass to a young woman with a
family history such as you describe.)

You are indeed selfish, Chaney.  You should realize that
your birth mother might have chosen to continue the
pregnancy even if she had had a choice, and quit thinking
of ways to force all young women to give birth.

I do hope you continue to tell the world how hateful
you are, though.  You are your own worst enemy.

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29619 alt.abortion.inequity:2769
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Hypocrites?
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:46:25 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>In article <adams.712521565@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 ) writes:
>>
>>>The media refers to pro-aborts as "pro-choice" and pro-life as
>>>"anti-abortion."  
>>Hmm.  Let's see...could that be because there are lots of people who
>>believe in the RIGHT to abortion while not supporting abortion itself?  You
>>could hardly call me 'pro-abortion,' but you can clearly call me
>>'pro-choice.'  Or, more simply put: "pro-choice" != "pro-abortion".
>>
>>You could argue for a slightly longer title : "pro-reproductive-choce"

>Or perhaps more accurately, 

>  "pro-second-choice" [as opposed to the first choice,
>                       to risk pregnancy resulting from sex]
Sorry, but it is entirely possible to take proper precautions and STILL end
up pregnant.  Oh, and then there's incest, rape, etc.

>  "pro-female-choice" [men have no legal/formal choice]

>Since "pro-choice" does not include any rights (influence != rights)
>for men beyond the "first choice," "pro-choice" is IMHO a bit broad.

A much more difficult problem.  Although men can't force an abortion, they
can be forced to support the child.  As for me, it's not an issue of force.
Were I to impregnate someone who chose to carry the child to term and keep
him/her, I'd support the child of my own free will, as part of my
responsibility.

>How about "pro-control"?  "anti-male-choice"?
'Control' fits the 'pro-life' side a bit better...they want to exercise
total control over the range of choices.  Why are the 'pro-life' people
against RU-486?

>>On the other hand, "pro-life" doesn't exactly state the thing they want,
>>now does it?  People who oppose executions & wars are just about as "pro-life"
>>as you can get.  And how about helping starving people?  Or the homeless.
>>What the "Pro-Life" people want is an end to abortion.  Period.  Therefore,
>>the proper appelation would well be "anti-abortion." 

>After the much-discussed television ads about offering and finding
>nice homes for children who aren't aborted [even though this may not
>apply to non-white/unhealthy babies], it seems that "pro-lifers"
>do have at least some strong concerns about life.  In general, 
>the debate over terminology seems to be motivated more by the desire 
>to call the "other" the "anti" group than by a desire for accuracy 
>[present company excepted] -- but that is just MHO.

This concern is demonstrated by using children to blockade clinics?

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who is this reference?
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:09:33 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.211417.17188@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER
>, JIMMY A.) writes:
>>In <14kenaINNb11@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com writes:
>>woman, who is a miracle in her own right, based on my notion of potentiality.

>  But then they get together.  Suddenly they are not sperm and egg, separate
>and unique, but Something Else.  They are not the same thing.

But they aren't the end result either. So they must be something else....
perhaps a lump?

>  We can equate the various forms of contraception with abortion only so far
>as that they prevent a baby/fetus/insert-your-favorite-term-here from being
>born.  Before fertilization, there is no magical potential to worry about--
[deletia...]

>  After, we are no longer discussing preventing something that happens pretty
>rarely (from the standpoint of the eggs and sperm) anyhow.  Once implanted,
>its a pretty safe bet that, barring unseen complications or outside interfe-
>rence, said sperm/egg combo will emerge in about 9 months as a baby.

You missed some of that freshman biology, I guess. 2/3 of those fertilized
eggs spontaneously abort. That's a 66.66667% failure rate, or more than
1 out of 2 that will not become a baby. So babies are the exception,
not the rule. Now for the tough question, do you shed a tear for all
those that fail to come to term naturally? If not, why do you make such
a fuss over one that is ended artificially at the same point in the
cycle? If you want the actual numbers that produce that 2/3s figure,
I'll go look it up, or you can ask Len Howard, a medical doctor, for
the stats.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 02:03:48 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Summary: Holtsinger gives up on making sense
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul22.225042.15548@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <nkkbsug@fido.asd.sgi.com# 
#cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
#
##dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#
###garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
####dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#
##### Oh? Then please provide a rational justification for killing a late-term 
##### fetus that would not also justify killing a newborn infant.
#
#### It is never necessary to kill a newborn infant in order to
#### remove it from its mother.  It is sometimes necessary to
#### kill a late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant
#### woman.
#
### It is not always necessary to kill a late term fetus to remove it 
### from the pregnant woman.  [...]  Try again.
#
## Could Holtsinger please explain the crucial difference 
## between "sometimes necessary" and "not always necessary"
#
#
#Sorry, I should have said, "it's never necessary to kill a late term 
#fetus to remove it from the pregnant woman during an elective abortion.
#Try again."
#
#It is sometimes necessary to kill a late term fetus during a medically 
#indicated abortion. The woman's immediate physical health or life may be  
#threatened by the presence of the fetus, and often the fastest remedy 
#is to perform an abortion. Inducing labor may take too long to remove 
#the fetus, by which time the woman's condition might worsen. 

Holtsinger, you might as well give this one up.  

Not all late term fetuses, as you put it, will survive
being separated from the pregnant women.  

The fetus in your "medically indicated" abortion scenario
above could be removed via hysterotomy.  Are you advocating
some other procedure be used?  Do you think that surgical
removal is more traumatic to the fetus than vaginal
delivery?

Continue to prove your ignorance.  It is amusing.

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: HeteroSexuality as a DeathKult
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:35:28 GMT

steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

] > = (John Stevens) writes:
] >> = (David Knapp) writes:
] 
] >>I would much rather that the woman I care about do what she feels
] >>most comfortable doing with her own body, because *she* is the one it would
] >>affect the most.
] 
] >I don't view 9 months of pregnancy as affecting the woman more than
] >dying.
] 
] David didn't mention dying; you did.  What's your point?


Sorry Novak, but I think that you have missed the point of
John Stevens follow up.

IT is a Known Medical Fact, and has been posted about, time and again,
and one can consult with Dr. Len Howard, that a woman runs a Higher
RISK of death by carrying to term than she does of having an abortion.

It appears, therfore, that Stevens has raised the matter of the
DeathPotentialOfGestation, as he is aware that every time he 
engages in coital sex, he is Implying a DeathThreat.

{ its a logical follow on to the whole of the if you have sex,
you are consenting to gestation, and hence since that has a higher
level of potential for death, that one has in fact implied to
the female one is Copulating With, that one is seeking to Kill Them.
This should not be Confused with the FrancoPhile Play on words
about 'the little death' which is 'orgasm.'  And Once again establishes
that Obviously, and Intuitively, and SelfEvidently, that HetroSexuality,
is a DeathKult and MUST be OutLawed!!!!! [1] }

ciao
drieux

[1] I am open to a discussion that for those persons, who hold
the postion that they engage in FlagrantHeteroSexuality wherein
Gestation is NOT the Primary Obligation, that they MIGHT, they
just MIGHT be some actual Variant of HomoSexuality, or some such
incliniation as is not so obviously a DeathKult!!!! 
But as Yet that point has to be established.





-- 
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: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 19:01:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.071248.25612@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
> [some self-righteous nonsense]

Please leave this discussion in alt.flame where I originally posted it, 
Ms. Garvin. Do you wish me to dredge up your old quote about "flames belong
in alt.flame" as a painful reminder, hmmmm??

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: "Upon insertation, some pain may be experienced" (Was: CNN...)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 01:53:52 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul23.005324.15532@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

[text about the origin of Rev. Schenck's pet fetus deleted]

#Obviously he got it somewhere.  Is it so off base to think he simply got it
#from it's mother?

Suzanne, all kidding aside, just how do you suppose that the
woman would have gotten possession of the product of a 
prostaglandin abortion?  If it is a stillbirth, then I
could maybe understand some sick woman keeping the body,
given that the birth occurred at home, but I cannot
understand where you think the woman would have gotten
it if it were an aborted fetus.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: One sure way to prevent a teen abortion? (was Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 21:17:56 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>>> Like, "If I ever find out that you're pregnant, I'll kill you?"
>>>> A kinder, gentler enforcement of wholesome traditional family
>>>> values, wouldn't you say? 
>>
>>> That's illegal. And it would prompt her to kill the baby by abortion. 
>>
>>Of course.  But here you demonstrate more concern for the fetus than
>>for the daughter.
>
>The daughter ain't being killed; the fetus is. 
>
>So I show more concern for the victim who might die, than I show
>concern for the victimizer. Ooooh, gee, that's a _horrible_ principle!

This attitude in some families (get pregnant and you'll be kicked out)
has killed teenagers who died from secret and illegal abortions and who
were forced into prostitution and drugs on the streets.

So then, who's the victim and who's the victimizer?

>Hey, my folks made sure my brother never talked back to them in their
>house, "no matter how much damage they do or how deeply they alienate
>their son." FACT: You do what you're supposed to, in your parents'
>house. Either that or you do your damnedest not to get caught. If not,
>they can give you any ultimatum they want: Do it or be grounded, do it
>or be kicked out, etc.  

To me these parents this shows no regard or respect for their son.  I
they ever receive any respect back I'll be really surprised.

>>If it's a battle over control, every parent loses eventually.  That's the
>>way it is.  At a certain age, trust becomes a bigger component in the
>>parent/child relationship equation.  If a parent chooses to make it a war,
>>he/she is only hastening defeat.  Imo, of course.
>
>Tell that 'control' battle to my brother, who now doesn't have a pot
>to piss in because my folks snatched it away a few years back. 

Won the battle and lost the war.  One son who (probably) doesn't respect
his parents, and another who doesn't respect anybody.  Pretty sad.

>Aw, and if that were true, we don't have to remind you people of the
>same act you people tried on me just a few months back. At least Dan
>Bredy got reported for something he did, that was a blatant violation
>of USENET rules (claiming to represent his site). You people like to
>report people for things they're _NOT_ doing, over small shit like
>"teacher, teacher, he's posting as someone else!" I believe the word
>that describes your people's actions, is a _PRANK_.  

Like the time you forged Susan Garvin's userid on _your_ post?

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Chaney's argument FOR choice! (Was Re: One sure way to prevent a teen abortion?)
Date: 29 Jul 92 11:47:52 CDT

In article <1992Jul29.115356.12423@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>
>Chaney IS an argument for choice.
>
Agreed, and for more reasons than one.

I don't know about the brother that Chaney refers to, the
one who's been disowned and disinherited, but Steve Chaney
has told the group that he's adopted.  Hearing stories about
adoptive parents who feel they have the right to throw the 
kids out at the first sign of insubordination would make me 
very uncomfortable if I were a young woman trying to decide
between abortion and the prospect of carrying a pregnancy to
term, with the hope of adoption into a loving home for the
resulting infant.

muriel
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: I have given up trying to engage in Rational debate with Forgach
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:53:44 GMT

From article by goldsman@cc.gatech.edu (Michael G. Goldsman):
> 
> For about the last six weeks or so I have been TRYING, through e-mail,
> to get Susan Forgach to stick to the rules of logic, and to  answer my 
> questions about a particular facet of the abortion debate.


Goldsman, you were not debating me.   You were BADGERING me.

Do NOT ever expect anyone to change their answers just because you asked 
your questions again.  And again and again and again and again and again.  

I would prosecute abortionists as the far more effective way to end
abortion.  You can just object to that answer 'till you're blue in the face.

Forgach
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion is Murder!!!
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:47:05 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Jul23.193644.22426@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:

>[blahblahblah] clear cut [blahblahblah] Abortion is murder [blahblahblah]
>Liberal supporters [blahblahblah] oppose the death penalty [blahblahblah]
>animal rights are more important [blahblahblah] Liberal tax and spenders
>Gore and Clinton [blahblahblah] George Bush [blahblahblah] last hope
>[blahblahblah] homosexuals take over [blahblahblah] wrath of God
>[blahblahblah]

Good grief! Another AI experiment gone haywire!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:40:45 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>You know, that would be true if I were of the same genetic code as you. 

Nominated for: Most Accurate Self-appraisal of the Month.

                       -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: State Teaching (formerly: Pro-Choice Position?)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 05:57:59 GMT

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

>I don't disagree with your contention, but why is acceptable to include
>the teaching of this value in a public curriculum, and unacceptable to 
>include other values?  Abstinence, for example.

Did Mr. Cochran ever state that the concept of abstinence should be
entirely excluded from public education?  I don't know, but I don't
believe that sex education classes should consist of nothing but the
phrase "About sex - don't have any."

And I'll state again that I have never encountered a sex education
class in any public school that did NOT teach that abstinence was 
the absolute ideal.  Has anyone else?

>Bill

                        -rocker