HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:12:31 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Aug17.191956.22687@pwcs.stpaul.gov> 
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

> It seems to be a signature of the pro-life mentality that one should never
> publicly dissent from someone who's 'one your side.'  In fact the _only_
> dissent I've seen in the pro-life camp (on the net, that is) is when Doug
> Holtsinger and Steve Franklin delivered Bronx cheers to each other over
> whether abortion is a religious issue or not.

I am not "pro-life", and I don't normally express substantial disagreement 
with pro-lifers in my posts because I know pro-aborts like you will gloat 
over it.  I do sometimes send e-mail to pro-lifers when I disagree with 
their views.
 
> On the other hand, it is very evident that pro-choicers are unafraid of
> expressing disagreement with someone who's 'on their side.'  

Really?  When was the last time you've publically expressed disagreement
with any pro-abort in this newgroup? 

>Chris Lyman  

> [.. out of context quote deleted ..]

You're a sexist for believing that all women think alike on the issue
of abortion.


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Keywords: Suzie Q proves her skull is full of cream stuffing and not brains.
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:28:02 GMT

In article <20633@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.232518.14958@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>> In article <Bsz7Cr.2K7.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>> Suzie Q steps in her own shit by claiming that Mark Kaufman is still
>> in my killfile when I said before that I took him out of the killfile.
>
>
>ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh boy !! Really showed her! I'll bet she won't even
>sleep a wink now.......

Newbie alert? 

===============================================================================
			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...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Humphrey should apologize to Mr. Chaney
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 19:25:01 GMT

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>Humphrey has posted remarks which carry strong racist overtones.  

Patrick told Chaney to march "his black fat ass down here".
It was a mistake, but let's not get dramatic here.  

Maybe Patrick will apologize, that's up to him; but surely the Propellor
Puff owes one to Humphrey for shrieking "KKK" in a way over-dramatic
frenzy.

Funny thing is, Rasmussen used to post *really* racist shit 10 times a
day.  I don't remember a single pro-lifer getting on his case.

Um..._you_ wouldn't know Mr. Rasmussen, wouldja?  How many MORE atheistic
misogynic pro-"life" liars ARE there at NCSU?  

>He hasn't apologized to Mr. Chaney.   I believe that that he should.

I believe you should mind your own business, and let little Stevie fight
his own battles.  Or did he ask you to protect him?

>I will continue to press him to apologize to Mr. Chaney.  As long 
>as it takes.  Does everyone understand that? 

No one CARES, Doogie.  Most t.a.ers know you're a hypocrite out of touch
with the truth.  (Gee, just like Dave Rasmussen!)  It's not like you could
change someone's mind.

Do *you* understand that?



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: A comment on RvW
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 20:28:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.004458.642@midway.uchicago.edu> 
eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> But then sentient animals would deserve protection from being killed, 
>> just like sentient humans. 

> 1) Name a sentient animal.

I define "sentient" as the ability to sense one's surroundings.  Other
people might define it as possessing "self-consciousness".  However
the actual dividing line between sentient and non-sentient is not all
that important to my point. 

Many animals possess far more sentience than a newborn infant.  Adult
primates are certainly more aware of their enviroment and of themselves
than newborn infants.  Other less advanced animals, like farm animals,
probably possess more sentience than newborns.  If one belives that 
personhood should be derived from sentience, then one must either support 
animal rights, or deny rights to newborn infants, or both, depending on 
the dividing line separating sentient entities from non-sentient entities. 

>E. Elizabeth Bartley


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: I tend to be Pro-Choice because: 2
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:05:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.162402.19224@advtech.uswest.com> 
steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

>> = (Linda Heather Springer) writes:

> [...]
>> Also, the Jews were under different rules than Christians.  They were  
>> allowed to have slaves and kill other nations.  God expects more of  
>> Christians. Please se my previous article *Re: I tend...*.

> Dear deluded Bible twinkie: if your "god" is this much of a shithead, who
> needs him anyway?

Ms. Springer was responding to a pro-abortionist who raised the  
subject of the interpretation of the bible.  If you pro-abortionists 
don't want to hear about the subject, then I suggest that you stop 
bringing it up.  


>| Steve Novak |    


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Re: Only God Can Help Us!
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:44:40 GMT

ck10322@china.medtronic.com (Cameron Kaszas) writes:



>I`m a Christian, thus pro-life. 

I'm a Christian, thus pro-choice.


Lori Kent Rothman
usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu

only my opinion...
>Cam 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 00:37:56 GMT

From article <1992Aug22.002739.10757@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, by gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis):
> In article <1992Aug21.234441.17118@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> }From article by gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis):
> }> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach):
> }> 
> }> }            Handicaps CAN be risen above.
> }> 
> }> I can fully agree with that, but that's a teeny bit different from
> }> "the world is what you make it," which I disagreed with...
> }
> }Not much different that I can see, at all.
> 
> Perhaps you and I disagree on the meaning of the term "world" when we 
> speak of it.  I look on the "world" as being a set of circumstances which
> are external to me and which I can only influence, nor create.  My life,
> however, is virtually up to me to make something out of -- I can mold
> it into whatever (there are some restrictions) I wish, limited mostly
> by my guts and/or imagination.
> 
> I think most christian theologians would probably use the terms in 
> much the same way, asserting that the "world" was made by God, and,
> if they also believe in a free will, would assert that humans were
> pretty much free to make what they will with their own lives, but they
> cannot alter the world.  (Unless they have faith, we've all heard what
> that can do to mountains :^)


Hey, my point exactly!  :-) :-)    I would speculate to say that
Mother Teresa lives in a far more beautiful world than say, Steve Novak.


Suzanne.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31322 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:347
From: scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: Judas (was: Numbers 5...)
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:43:03 GMT
	<1992Aug12.024753.8245@cfctech.cfc.com>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Aug12.024753.8245@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:

   In article <SCOTTS.92Aug7152341@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
   >And while you're quoting the Bible, don't forget the passage where
   >Jesus says of Judas "He would have been better off had he never been
   >born."  Note that Jesus did not say conceived.  

   Are you sure he DIDN'T? Are you reading a modern translation, or the original 
   Aramaic?

The words for 'born' and 'conceived' are different in aramaic, hebrew and 
greek. 

   >Sounds like Jesus is advocating abortion to me...

   Can someone be born without being conceived, Scott? No, it's a precondition.
   So the statement can just as easily be interpreted as "He would have been
   better off had he never been conceived". And this is FAR more likely than
   your interpretation, given the socio-historical context in which it was 
   spoken. How prevalent was abortion in the Middle East during this part of the
   Roman occupation?

Gee, now Kebbie is claiming the bible is written in Darcy-speak!  Or
perhaps Kebbie is having delusions that he is Jesus!

My interpretation is no less valid than the pro-force argument that the
bible prohibits abortion.

________  __
\      / /  \
 \pink/  \__          -+--+-               Scott Safier    (corwin+@cmu.edu)
  \  /      \  _  __   |  |                Center for Integrated Manufacturing
   \/    \__/ (__/\_)_/|_/|_/                                 Decision Systems
        B0/1 f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++             Carnegie Mellon
member, T.S.A.K.C.

"I see a divine hand in this AIDS thing." Dr. John Wilke, President
                                          National Right to Life Committee
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: So The bible Is NOT the word of God?????
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 21:15:57 GMT

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:

] Are you doubting the word of the Lord?
] 
] rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
] 
] <However, let us assume that we're actually talking about accurate medical
] <history here, which I highly doubt.
] 
] We are not talking about accurate medical history here. We are talking about
] the law of Moses. It is not a precise law because it must cover many different
] cases, as any good law must.


So let me get this straight then:

1. since the verses in Numbers five clearly
establish that God Understands how to commit an abortion....

2. This should Not be taken to be a part of the DivineWordOfGod????

Or is this just a Generic BibleBashingFest here?????


( it gets so hard some days to tell the AntiAbortionistFetalIdolators
from the merely AntiChristian..... )


ciao
drieux




-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:46:13 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating
Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:

Sheeesh.  The 2.0 version is just as buggy as the first version. :-)

> The pro-aborts slipped in their consistency check when I proposed that if
> parental consent laws are gone, which means parents are denied their
> rights, parents can say "you have an abortion -> you get kicked out." They
> said that parents cannot abandon their children for disobeying their
> parents, and that they cannot send them to foster homes or homes to
> unwanted children, for their actions, nor is it right to make them feel
> unwanted in the home, or disown them from the family inheritance.

> Jennifer Brindle said the opposite, a few months ago: Parents often abandon
> their children, and legally. Regardless.

> Who's right? Is she right or are you folks right, especially Chris Lyman?
> The two statements are very contradictory to each other.

> Can't the pro-aborts get their case straight, or do we notice a pattern in
> them contradicting themselves?

Perhaps you could supply us with the article where Ms. Brindle said that.  I'd
be interested in seeing it for myself.  Oh, and reference number and time stamp
would be nice too.

Do have this idea that we all get together to get our stories straight?
Here's a clue, Mr. Chaney:  we are _all_ (pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike)
very diverse individuals.  I doubt that you could find any two of us who
agree on everything.

I happen to believe that mediation is the way to go.  Parents who abandon their
children are lower than pond scum, imo.

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
 "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -- Benjamin Disraeli
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Technical point of clarification
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 01:02:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.215356.8703@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, 
just drieux) writes:

I stand corrected.  I forget sometimes that the world continued to 
evolve after I "left" the military.  Forgive me too if Panama doesn't
jump to mind when the word "war" is mentioned.  

}Just because you have been out for a bit, does NOT mean
}you are at liberty to spew the Silliness of a Civilian!!!!

Point well taken.  I am well reprimanded.

}Things have gone a long way from the Bayonet Charge and
}the Black Powder Muskets of your era....

Back in my day, we had it rough.  Gunpowder?  We didn't even have
guns.  We had sticks and rocks though.  That's what they said
would be left after WWIII.  What goes around comes around.  [ed]


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Okay, okay, the Michelman joke was sexist!
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:46:24 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Aug17.200855.8075@csus.edu>
chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space
Systems, Revision 2.0 ) writes:  

>Okay, okay, you're right, whoever pointed out the Michelman / PMS
>statement. 

It was me; I'm nearly always right.  Now that you seem to be having a
rare flash of sensibility, consider this.  Your position on abortion
is sexist too: It limits the right to bodily autonomy of women in a
way that you would never limit the same rights for men.  Do you favor
laws to force fathers to donate kidneys to their children?

>It was sexist and I apologize and I retract it, no if's, and's or 
>but's.  

I hope to be hearing the same soon about your fanatical anti-choice
misogyny.  

SJM


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 12:12:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.215027.1814@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> In article <1992Aug11.181819.9370@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
> >now you are whining that you think someone tried to remove yours.
> 
> Susan Garvin? 


You are such a liar.  Susan never did any such thing.  You
forged her name in your article header and she complained about
that, as is her right.

You go around trying to forge articles and you get what you
deserve.

Dan King is right.  You are a twelve year old.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Out on a Limb: He won't do it!
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:47:30 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Aug18.171437.28911@watson.ibm.com>
margoli@watson.ibm.com challenges DOD about abortion on demand.  Of
course, I've never understood what abortion on demand is: "I'll have a
quart of milk, two dozen eggs, and an abortion, please."  Can the same
objections be raised to appendectomy on demand?  At any rate, Larry
has clarified why this has confused me.  It's a myth, I must have
missed in my year-long courses of literature humanities and
contemporary civilization as an undergrad:

>Given that there are only 3 doctors in the US that perform 3rd trimester
>abortions, and then only for medical reasons, it seems obvious to any
>reasonably intelligent observer that "abortion-on-demand throughout
>the term of pregnancy" is simply a myth.
>
>For you to claim otherwise, you'd have to document for us some
>third-trimester abortions for other than medical reasons.

I have a feeling that DOD is going to let us down on this one: He
won't do it.  But, Steve Chaney, who has even less compunction about
manufacturing evidence (Hell, he even manufactures people!), just
might.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc.alt.politics.bush
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:26:29 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug14.151557.28696@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <Bsz84u.36A.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
> > No, Holtsinger, he said that all women deserve support of their right to
> > choose.
>
> And that's sexist, because he assumes that all women would actually
> _want_ support of their right to an abortion, i.e. that all women are
> pro-choice.

This statement is not correct.

> If he said "all people deserve support of their right to discriminate
> against homosexuals", then wouldn't that wrongly assume that all people
> would actually _want_ to discriminate against homosexuals?

No, it would wrongly assume that all people have a right to discriminate
against homosexuals in the first place.

What Chris actually said was:
# Definitely!  Their statements regarding their (grand)daughters are just a tad
# hypocritical; one would hope that they see the error of their ways and open
# the door for _all_ women rather than close it for their (grand)daughters.

"Open the door" doesn't mean you'd force anyone through it; it just means
that it's available for those who want it.

As Ms. Garvin paraphrased,
> He said that all women deserve support of their right to choose.

To draw an analogy - all women deserve support of their right to escape
from an abusive relationship.  This does not assume that all women *want*
support of this right.  Some women feel that they're better off than they
would be outside of the relationship.  Some women feel that they're the
man's property, and don't have any such right.  Regardless - they
deserve *support* of their right, whether or not they want it or
plan on taking advantage of it.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 19:51:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.224546.2091@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>>In case Pat Roby didn't notice, the point was, no, there was no way I
>>could have had any form of a bad childhood at home. 
>
>"No way"?  Don't you have the strange-o parents that threw their children
>out of the house and wouldn't let them back in?  Right there, you have
>lack of love for your children.

No, dipshit - you have a lack of respect by a child, for their
parents. And BTW, in case you didn't read my post (or in case you
don't read at all, for that matter), my brother was _facing_ being
removed from the home for his outrageous disrespect - a lot of
backtalk, not coming home for days at a time, forging signatures for
school, etc. It got worse when he left home. What my parents said to
him, was irrelevant to him after that. 

Well, now, he is irrelevant.  


>There's "no way" you could've had a GOOD childhood, and Stevie, it shows
>so badly in your pathetic shouts for attention and psychotic episodes
>that we really no longer need _your_ opinion on the matter.

And _you're_ to talk, Novak? Ron Graham and I know exactly how
pathetic you are and how psychotic you get with pro-lifers. You can't
even challenge him directly if it would save your life. Your
intellegence is like that of a block of granite.  

In other words, when it comes to intellegent debate and dialogue, _you_ 
are irrelevant. 

But I admit; if I keep sinking down to your mentality, I'll be
irrelevant to intellegent discussion here, too. Excuse me while I pull
myself up from your level...  

===============================================================================
			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...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: There's no good reason to vote for Bush
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 04:35:55 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <moses.713758251@zeppelin>  moses@convex.com (John Moses) writes:
>
>    Certain actions curtail your rights.  I chose to father a child.
> That limited my rights to spend my money anyplace I choose.  I must
> now spend money to support the child.  I am legally obliged to do so.
> It is an infringement, but one I "made" for myself.

True, because you *chose* to father a child.

>     If you drive a car, you run the risk of hitting someone and suffering
> the consequences.

True, but you're certainly permitted to get medical care to minimize the
suffering.

> If you have sex and end up creating a child by accident,
> you suffer the consequences.

True, but if you decide to abort the fetus before a child exists,
you've avoided those consequences.

> Sustaining life is the proper choice in these cases.

That's your opinion.  And I'm 100% behind your right to make that choice
for yourself.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)