HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smithmc@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Punishing women...
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:59:19 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

In article <1992Jul20.182518.19957@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
><extreme satirical mode ON>
>
>Gosh, maybe this is an effective way to promote
>wholesome traditional family values!
>
><extreme satirical mode OFF>
>-- 
>Chris Lyman - email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov 

You ever notice how parents who want to encourage family values usually
do it by beating the Hell out of their children and mentally torturing
them in to submission? Many people who I met who come from conservative
Christian households are in therapy because they were beaten so badly;
in many cases these people were also sexually abused by their parents.

Don't believe me? Just ask your local homeless teenager how s/he ended
up on the streets. Or ask your local teenage prostitute how they ended
up as a prostitute. They're the victims of many people's Family Values.

Lost Boy

***********************************************************************
* If kids were really influenced by Murphy Brown like Dan Quayle says,*
* then there'd be more successful, college-educated single mothers.   *
* 						-Karen Uru            *
***********************************************************************
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
Date: 29 Jul 92 23:14:55 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon) writes:
>In article <64447@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) w
>rites:

{ Jim asks Richard to be his conduit to an imaginary being....he agrees
to try....]

>Then why don't you ask Jesus the next time you see him to ask god if it
>can make a foot so big that it can't stick it in it's mouth?

>By the way, would this be Oral Robert's 900-foot Jesus?

Jim, you obviously haven't read the true history of the account, as
presented on Kudzu. That was a 900 ft Trigger. But then, anyone can
see why Oral thought a 900 ft invisible being was the lord almighty,
now, can't they?

(I wonder what good ole Roy thinks of his friend now? )

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A comment on RvW
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 22:03:41 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul27.192822.23567@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

#  This is just something interesting I noted when reading the text of the
#Supreme Court's decision.  It has been mentioned (at least in passing) before.
#While RVW is generally considered as granting women the right to choose (and 
#has been treated that way by the laws), it actually (as the text is written)
#does no such thing.  What it does do is prevent the states from interfering
#with the DOCTOR's decision vis a vis abortion prior to the first trimester
#etc. etc.
#
#  RVW *as written* does not *seem* to grant the choice to women.  Obviously that
#is how it has turned out in practice.  I just wonder what everone's thoughts
#are on the matter.  Perhaps this apparent lapse was cleared up in another
#case I  missed.  Since I try to abstain from the legalisms, I'm merely 
#interested from a standpoint of curiousity, and have no intention of getting 
#involved in any flamewar/cum debate on what the Justices *really* meant.
#
#  (besides maybe playing devil's advocate because I'm feeling mean and nasty
#about this recalcitrant program of mine...)
#
No, you didn't suddenly discover a major flaw in Roe, as you
seem to believe.  I can see that you are basing your erroneous 
interpretation on a few words in the decision, while ignoring 
the lengthy discussion of the right to privacy.  Perhaps you
should read the decision again.

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 00:55:24 GMT

[Note:  Lots of deletions...]

In article <1992Jul21.181133.7079@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.004136.9063@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul20.192606.14167@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu 
>>(Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>  OB-GYN PHYSICIANS AND RESIDENTS
>   $180,000 Guarantee
>    $180,000 annual guarantee for experienced ob-gyn physicians joining
>    brand new group just moving into Dallas.  Will open in July.  Full and
>    part time openings for residents in surgery, ob-gyn, and general
>    medicine.  Growth potential unlimited.
>
>Ad run in _Dallas Morning News_ on June 24, 1974.  The above salary guarantee
>was four times the starting salary for regular obstetric practice.

Huh?  So you're saying that since this group is "guaranteeing" an ob/gyn
4 times the starting salery of an ob doctor, that they're all abortionists?

Menstruation stops a beating heart...
--
=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: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Abortion is Murder!!!
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 01:05:08 GMT

How come I never get to see these really funny articles except through
someon else's responses?  Darn!

<darkstar.711929847@milton> darkstar@milton.u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann) said:
>jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
>>I don't understand how you people can even debate such a clear cut issue.

And what issue is that?

>>Abortion is murder and there is no way to deny it.  

Sure there is:  murder is illegal, abortion isn't.  Therefore abortion is
not murder.

>>                                                    These supposed 
>>"Pro-Choice" people are supporting the killing of little babies.  

Please point out which pro-choicers support killing babies.

>>                                                                  To me, the
>>ironic thing is that many of the Liberal supporters of abortion are the ones
>>that oppose the death penalty and believe animal rights are more important 
>>than human's.  

And many of the pro-lifers believe that a woman's place is in the home -
barefoot and pregnant.  How do you feel about that?

>>               I just pray to the Lord above that those Liberal tax and spenders

Which "lord" is that?

>>Gore and Clinton do not get in the White House. George Bush is this country's
>>last hope before the liberals and the homosexuals take over.  If this country
>>is not careful, it is going to feel the wrath of God, and it will not be pretty.

The wrath of what god?  The new god "Jehovah", or one of the old gods?
BTW, Ol' George raised taxes, and we have the largest deficit ever.  How
much worse can the Democrats do?


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: M.Prices.fan.club,talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Steve 'n' me
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 17:57:09 GMT

<Brpvs1.AD5@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) said:
><1992Jul21.011953.24281@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>>>>     [...] I've asked you several times if you would be my ex-lover.
>>>   Jeeezus, that's not even funny. Assuming you are male? Ugh... I'm sorry,
>>>but the thought isn't very appealing, and I almost spewed ASCII at the
>>>though... Sorry. 
>>
>>     So I guess sex is out of the question?
>
>Sorry, but you know me better than that. Stick to artificial toys for now,

You seem to be as artificial as they come (no pun intended).


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.
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 2
Date: 28 Jul 92 04:44:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>In article <z2hmfa+.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>>>Precisely because the z/e/f dies, we are aiming to pass a Human Life
>>>Amendment which will grant them their right to live (which was a right
>>>of theirs since science first knew of their existence, in the
>>>1860's-1870's).  
>>
>>Science first discovered the existence of zygotes, embryos, and fetuses
>>in the womb in the late 19th century?!?  Well, I suppose if Margaret 
>>Sanger can get an abortion when she was in her 80's, anything is possible.
>>Still, one does wonder about those biblical references to pregnant women
>>being with child.
>
>Biblical references don't necessarily have any relevance to fact, but
>in this case, science proved that yes, fetus = person. 

1) Science never "proves" anything about the real world.
2) Whether something is a person is a philosophical issue and
   not one that science has resolved.
3) People have known where babies come from for thousands, if not
   tens of thousands, of years.  It was not discovered in the late
   19th century.

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jennifer@algol.astro.Virginia.EDU (Jennifer Wesp)
Subject: Re: State Teaching (formerly: Pro-Choice Position?)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 16:08:22 GMT

cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>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?

I haven't.  I think the problem is that it's tough to take as many
words and as much time talking about abstinance as you need to if you
discuss the alternatives in any detail.  What the silly people who
scream for the teaching of abstinance want is equal air time for
their ideas.  But when all their ideas boil down to is "About sex -
don't have any."  it's hard to spend a long time discussing
techniques, No?

-jennifer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: Some useful statistics
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:25:46 GMT
Keywords: From: decay@

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:


>I'll just point out that as well as repeating false claims about
>the health and safety requirements which can legally be imposed
>upon freestanding abortion clinics, Kellmeyer has also repeated
>a great deal of anecdotal evidence from anti-abortion physicians.
>The so-called scientific evidence that some of these people cite
>is not accepted by most.  The CDC disputed Hilgers' statistical 
>methods, for example.  

>The study of psychological aftereffects in members of Women
>Exploited by Abortion (the Reardon study) is not worth refuting
>again.  (Can you say biased sample?)

>The evidence which supports the safety of legal abortion is
>overwhelming.  Unscrupulous anti-abortion people attempt to
>fabricate evidence to refute it, but these attempts have been
>exposed as frauds over and over again.  

>Susan

Then you wouldn't have any trouble digging up cites that prove what 
you say.  All I hear is your opinion.  I know you claim omniscience,
especially about any subject which you have no experience in, but
I'm a doubting Thomas - I need more than just your omniscient opinion.

SK
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Date: 27 Jul 92 10:09:48 CDT

In article <adams.712206042@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>In my humble opinion, a woman 'creates' nothing.  God creates.  Sure, there
>is a certain biological/physiological happenstance.  But since I believe
>that the soul enters the body at conception, that life is only for God to
>take, if He so choses.  But you miss my point, too.  I am pro-choice.  I
>object to abortion on religious grounds, yet refuse to impose my religion
>on anyone else.  
>
Steve, I applaud your justification for remaining pro-choice
despite your moral stance on abortion.  But tell me, when do
identical twins get 'ensouled'?  Do they share a soul, or is one
of them soulless?  If a second soul is introduced at the moment
of division, which one gets the original soul?  This could be
the stuff of which dreadful arguments are made between twin
siblings.

muriel
standard disclaimer

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29119 alt.politics.homosexuality:5206
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: HeavingUndulationsOfHeteroSexuality Batman!!!!
Date: 27 Jul 92 13:42:49 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>> Good grief! Another AI experiment gone haywire!

> Now would ANY decent AI program, even if gone arye,
> or gone abourban, or gone ascotch, would be so
> UnderIntelligent as to MISS the FlagrantHeavingUndulationsOfHeteroSexuality!!
!!

Obviously not an 'expert' system...

-- 
Chris Lyman -  a personal        /   "I belong to no organized
opinion for every occasion       /   political party.  I am a
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov    /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Bush's mom
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:28:35 GMT

rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:


>Lou Harris (the pollster) said in a recent speech that George
>Bush's mother has been a member of Planned Parenthood in CT
>for over 25 years.  This is the first I've heard this.  Given
>that Harris is fairly reputable and the speech was on NPR (at
>the National Press Club, which also menas it was probably on
>C-SPAN), I suspect it is true.

   [much good speculation deleted]

CNN ran a story not long ago on Bush's "famous flip-flops".
The most major flip-flop they reported was that in 1964 Bush
was running for (Congress?) on a platform of vehement opposition
to the Civil Rights Act.  His opponent had voted in favor of the
Act, and Bush based his campaign on attacking his opponent's 
position on the issue.  The opponent won in a landslide...and in
his next campaign, like magic, Bush was suddenly a strong supporter
of the CRA.  

Bush had such a strong reputation as a supporter of Planned Parenthood
(I believe he and Barbara were Directors for a while...at the very 
least they were known to make extremely large contributions) and 
contraception that Wilbur Mills eventually gave him the nickname of
"Rubbers".

And they showed an interview with Bush from spring 1980 where Bush
is asked a question about abortion, and he responds quite clearly
"Of course a woman has the right to choose..."

>Which leads me to wonder if George, in his second term, will 
>do another flip-flop on abortion.  He won't have to worry
>about keeping the right wing happy.  He'll be free to do
>what he really believes.

>What do you think?

I'm not sure.  Has everyone been watching Nightline this week,
where campaign workers and some party biggies have been coming forth
to complain that wackos in the "Religious" Right (and I do so hate
to use the word "religious" to describe these people who trample on
the tenets of Christianity) have taken over the Bush campaign?  If
Bush thinks he needs them enough that he's willing to hand over 
whatever might be left of his soul to them, I'm not sure it would
be such a wise move for him to piss on them once the election is over.

>Russ Anderson    

                      -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: K.O., 0:10 of 1st Round (WAS Re: Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:51:13 GMT

> = Susan "Lies Exposed for Free" Garvin writes:
># = Stephen A Chaney steps into a four foot cowpie:

>[text deleted]
>
>#This is the same Margaret Sanger who said, in one breath, that
>#abortion was wrong, and then died of one? 
>#
>#And don't say that isn't true; Planned Parenthood themselves, in their
>#big Sanger's Birthday celebration ads, talked about her death by an
>#illegal abortion. 
>#
>#Don't even TRY to escape from this one, Garvin.

>Margaret Sanger was born in 1883 and died in 1966.  
>
>Feel free to try to squirm out of this one, Chahallney.

Oh, MAN.  You shouldn't use a sledgehammer on someone's nuts.  Between him and
Holtsinger, they *may* send a hitman after you :).

Whaddya say, Chaney?  Do we get a retraction?  Or will you blow smoke out
of your ass like Holtsinger does?

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:20:08 GMT

In <1992Jul21.221854.4319@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com 
   (Gordon Storga) writes: >
<1992Jul8.214931.24675@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) said: >>
<2609@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dcwst8+@pitt.edu 
   (David C Winters) writes: >
>>> So, anything that god does is OK, because he is god?  He can take away
>>> everything someone has, and then justify it by saying "That is OK, he
>>> still has his faith in me, never mind that his life is ruined?"
>>> He can order someone to kill his own son as a sacrifice?  He can
>>> demolish entire cities?
>
>> Why does God have to justify His behavior to us?
>
> Because I say so.  This reason holds about as much water as your assertion
> that he doesn't have to justify it to us.

Again, your position doesn't allow for the possibility that God is there.
If He is, the opinion of a finite human isn't too compelling when matched 
against that of an infinite God.  His "because I say so" would be a bit
more meaningful than yours.  

>>> Sorry, it does not wash.  No one, not even the creators of a law, are to
>>> be held above the law.  
>
>> Whose rule is that?  Why would it apply to God?
>
> Because I say so.

Who are you in the grand scheme of things?

>>> If your god will start living by the rules that
>>> he has (supposedly) made for us to follow, then he _might_ get a bit of
>>> respect from me.  
>
>> Why should an infinite God be subject to the same set of rules that
>> apply to you and I?
>
> Because I say he should be.

Who are you in the grand scheme of things?

>>> I really don't care if you choose to revel in these delusions in your
>>> home/fantasy life, 
>
>> Religious beliefs don't necessarily constitute delusions, at least  
>> according to the American Psychiatric Association.  
>
> But they are an indication.

Not in the absence of psychotic process.  In themselves, religious
beliefs indicate absolutely no psychopathology.

>> Your complaints proceed from the premise that God simply isn't there.  

> That is the base premise.  Now you need to provide proof that a god *is*
> there.

No I don't, nor do I feel any particular need to try.  My subjective 
experience is more than adequate for me.  

>> It's easy to be flippant when you're measuring your ethics against 
>> a myth.  Yet if (for the sake of argument) God is there, your criti-
>> cisms are insignificant.  
>
> Why?

Because the created are subject to (not equal to) the creator.

>> So, since it's obviously easier to simply say "I don't believe in
>> God" than to spend time arguing that He doesn't exist, why bother?
>
> Because so many want to impose their morals on the basis of the existence
> of an all loving god that will destroy us if we misbehave.

Since the "values neutral" alternative is a myth, we're left with a
real dilemma in our efforts to select a mutually agreeable basis for 
social organization and law. 

I guess your values (and their premises) are better than mine?

Bill

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Did Clinton embrace the pro-life position??
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 17:35:26 GMT

<1992Jul21.191554.8569@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>From article by dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger):
>>   "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.  (Although he was addressing deadbeat dads.)
>I guess whatever's _convenient_ to his campaign.

Right, and of course many of us were privileged to witness Quayle's
admission (on Larry King Live) that if his daughter were to get an 
abortion HE WOULD SUPPORT HER DECISION.

Sounds pro-choice to me.  Of course, he couldn't be just using whatever is
convenient to his campaign, now could he?

>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.

Your mom sounds like a mean cruel hearted person (Gee, I wondered where
you learned it) to immediately jump to such a negative conclusion about
somebody who has a lump of dead human tissue shoved into his face first
thing in the morning.  Wish I knew where she lived.  Maybe I could show
up on her doorstep with a dead chicken and shove it in her face.
Unless she is a vegetarian she shouldn't mind, should she?


Gordon
-- 
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.