HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: Pro-aborts who reduce women to fetal containers (was Responsibility
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 18:51:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.023035.15907@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>Allow me to rephrase: But you do force the woman to justify
>her reasons for killing a human being.  Pro-aborts say that
>a woman can kill a human being as long as that human being 
>resides within her body.  

>They ignore the woman's actual reasons for wanting an abortion.

No. We simply do not ask her to justify her beliefs, for she is a person
with feelings and ideals of her own, and it is not our place to judge
her.

>This treats women like fetal containers.

No, it permits her to decide what use is made of her body. To tell a woman
that nothing she wants to do, or hopes to do is as important as carrying
a fetus to term is to reduce her to a fetal container, for by saying
that carrying a fetus to term is more important than anything else, you 
have said that her other feelings, beliefs, and needs are of no value,
and that her purpose in life is to be a container for fetuses, and that
any other goals are merely indulgences allowed until she fulfills her
destiny.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: PH, please pick up the white courtesy phone...
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.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 23:20:41 GMT

In article <nyikos.719094069@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <ldbc8lINN98q@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>In article <92283.030621KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>In article <ld8ou7INNqrg@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM
>>>(Eric Marsh) says:
>
>>>>>>So, the fact that it is illegal is what makes it wrong?  Is there
>>>>>>anything deeper, Grasshopper?
>
>>>>>Besides absolute right and wrong, no.
>
>This use of "absolute" is misleading.  There are strong philosophical bases
>for morality having nothing to do with religion, but there is nothing
>really "absolute" about most of them.

Sister, your ignorance is showing.  There's *NOTHING* absolute about anything
having to do with morality.

--
=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???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre,alt.cascade
From: mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
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: Sat, 10 Oct 92 02:58:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.133714.9820@Firewall.Nielsen.Com> jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson) writes:
>
>Too bad all these drieux fans can't edit the fucking Newsgroups: line.

Damn shame, isn't it?
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:04:39 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com

---
ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:
|Anyway, there was one question that was left
|unanswered, and that was which translation did the quote from Deuteronomy
|30:19 come from.  To be perfectly honest, I can't remember, but here's the
|King James, and it says the same thing:

|DEU 30:19  I call heaven and earth to record this day against you,
|              that I have set before you life and death, blessing
|              and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and
|              thy seed may live:

I am familiar with Deut. 30:19, and unfortunately for you, I'm
also familiar with its context.  It has nothing to do with
abortion, and is utterly worthless as an argument one way or
the other.  In its context, it is a call to the Israelites to
accept or reject a covenant with Yahweh.  That some translations
use the same language as the pro-life slogan is completely
coincidental.

The only Biblical references to abortion seem to be
Numbers 5:12-31 and Exodus 21:22-25.  Both of these
are ambiguous, and have various interpretations.

In any event, as a non-Christian, I find your bible utterly
meaningless.  You won't convince me by quoting from it.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (Charles Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Meet Ismail Elguindi, Abortionist
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: Fri, 16 Oct 92 02:37:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.022754.8739@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
>Steeves and Nyikos should be praying that this information is
>true.  Nuisance suits beget other suits.
>
>Nyikos posts a pamphlet by an O.R. affiliate, and expects us
>all to believe it.  Right.  One of the doctors in Pittsburgh
>who occasionally filled in at a clinic here has intimate
>experience with this kind of thing.  A woman said that she
>saw the doctor at his office for a gyne exam.  She claimed 
>that he raped her.  Every one of his patients volunteered
>to testify in his behalf.  He was acquitted.  The woman's
>testimony was not credible - she changed her story several times.
>Her regular OB/GYN testified that she'd had a gyne exam at
>his office the month before the alleged rape occurred, and
>that she had future appointments scheduled with him.  She
>could not explain why she had gone to another doctor for
>this exam.  It was not mentioned at the trial, but she is
>a member of several right-to-lie groups here.  
>
	The great irony, it seems to me, is that Bush and Quayle are claiming
to support tort reform legislation that would probably cut down on this
particular tactic.  So their re-election would actually take away one of the
sleazier weapons employed by the anti-abortion crowd, while Clinton's
election would probably leave it in place.  Droll.
	Personally, I'm willing to see them retain their little tactics as
long as *we* get to appoint the next round of Federal judges...>:-)>
[...]
>
>Susan
>
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'



Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42498 alt.abortion.inequity:4413
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Mary and the angel (was Re: Don't just whine ...
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:44:14 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Oct8.002834.4904@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) said:
>In article <1992Oct7.232040.1780@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu 
>(Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>}Hey, Mary was perfectly free to say "No", as has been pointed out to
>}you before.  Anyone interested may read the first chapter of Luke. 
>}She most specifically CHOSE to say "Yes!"
>
>It seems to me we've discussed this before.  I have Luke open to the 
>first chapter, and here's what I see:
>
>An angel apears to Mary and says some stuff about how lucky she is.  At 
>no time does Mary say either "yes" or "no," the only account is that she
>was "troubled."  The angel continues to tell her that she is to become
>pregnant and should name the child "Jesus."  Mary again responds with
>neither a "yes" or a "no," but rather a question sort of like "How?
>I'm a virgin."  The angel says that God will take care of the details.
>There is no indication whatsoever that Mary had any choice at all, rather
>the selection process and the subsequent events are sort of a done deed.
>As a matter of fact, Mary says "be it unto me according to thy word" (KJV,
>the quote may not be accurate, but I kind of doubt the translation would
>mistake a "yes" or a "no" as a bunch of words.) then the angel splits.
>Most of the rest of Luke either deals with John the Baptist.  There is 
>no indication in Luke (or any other book that I have read, nor in any
>other account that I have access to) that Mary was asked any question,
>much less that she "most specifically CHOSE to say 'Yes!'."
>
>I think the last time I concluded with the thought that you can believe
>that if you want, Suzanne, but there is absolutely no indication in
>any account that Mary was given a choice, nor is there any indication that
>she said "yes."
>
>I'll say again, Suzanne, that may be a nice thing for you to believe,
>but there is absolutely no substantiation for it.

Yup, more evidence that Suzanne is not quite in sync with the book she
basis her life upon, and tries to base *our* lives upon.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it 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
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos (was:THE SUFFERIN
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:39:48 GMT

In <mm2z69a@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: > 
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>

>>Which is good, because not only do I not accept any blame for what
>>happened to their daughter, I will continue to vote for candidates
>>who support such consent laws.
>
>and i will continue to think that you, and other
>anti-choicers who support notification/consent laws,
>are, in part, responsible for the young women who die,
>in part, as the result of these laws.

I used to value your opinion, but that has changed (probably
to no one's surprise).

>i'll bet that a lot of parents share my views.

Time will tell, as we watch such laws being passed or
repealed.

Bill
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:10:39 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>Well, I certainly do care about human life, born and unborn.  Whether
>you believe that or not is another thing.  But I know what is in my
>heart and what is in my head.  What is in my heart and what is in my
>head cannot be wrong.

If you wanted a direct proof about why I think you're a pompous ignorant
oaf, here it is, in your own words. What makes you think you are oh
so correct? Either in your heart or in your head? Your head is doubtful,
asx it appears to cause you to spew incessant unsubstantiated nonsense
when others have pointed out flaws in your arguments, and only a fool
thinks with his heart. I doubt you are a "fool" in the sense of the
previous line. So, you're pompous (think you are correct, damn the rest),
ignorant (have an obvious lack of information) and are an oaf (continuously
unable to register new facts and incorporate them into the discussion,
<oaf means, among other things "dull, stupid person">)

I thought I'd at least back up my words directly. Any more questions?
(Take heart, at least I think you're a person!:)

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: is bill getting a bit overly sensitive?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:19:39 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->Has
->Keegan come up with another rule that I don't know about?

post a list of the "rule"s you know of and i'll let you
know.

you seem to be, well, a bit overly sensitive bill.

are you feeling guilty that the legislation you endorse
will kill women?


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Go directly to jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.00
Summary: What state does Arnold live in? 
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.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 18:00:32 GMT

In article <Oct07.220511.71586@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>In article <1aqa7eINN140@fido.asd.sgi.com>, cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>|> In article <Oct05.203207.51974@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu writes:
>|> 
>|> |Well put.  It is no more punishment to require a woman to fulfil
>|> |her parental responsibilities than it is punishment to require
>|> |one who signed an enlistment contract to go to boot camp, or to
>|> |require one who injures another in a car accident to do
>|> |everything possible to save the life and health of the one
>|> |injured.
>|> 
>|> Since when is having sex equivalent to signing a contract?
>|> And since when are people involved in car accidents responsible
>|> for saving the life & health of an injured party?
>
>	Engaging in sex is an act which may have consequences.  People are
>responsible for the effects of their behavior on others when that behavior is
>either negligent or willful.
>	If you hit somebody else's car, my friend, you'd better try to save their
>lives or you're going straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.  Are
>you trying to imply that you SHOULD NOT have to help those you injure?  If so, it
>is your position, not mine, that is ludicrous.

Um, excuse me, Steve, but WHAT FUCKING WORLD ARE YOU LIVING ON?

You're certainly not living in Colorado, or on the same Earth as the
rest of us.

--
=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???=
=National Coming Out Day is Oct 11th, 1992. Closets Are A Place To Put Clothes=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Stop preaching and try personal Responsibility (Was: Choice for life)
Summary: Now, if Simon would just follow his own adivce...
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:58:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.082415.1797@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>In response to Garrett's comment's that my info on abstinence was
>perhaps flawed:
>
>I'm not personally trying to tell people what to do.

Sure you're not.  You're just advocating enactment of statutes that'll
accomplish the same thing, while you say "but *I'm* not forcing anything on
anyone!".  It don't play in Peoria, kid.

>What I was trying to say is that sex is serious business (and highly enjoyable,
>based on what I have been told), and that both parties involved should know
>what they're doing, but I never said to outlaw it.  But I do think it ought to
>be a part of a good relationship.  ok folks, fire aay.

What you feel about sex is your business -- so it's your job to find someone
who shares your view.  It's not your job to try to force everyone else to
share that view by law.  

--PLH, lived with my wife for two years before I married her, and I'll be
damned if anyone will force me to apologize for it -- especially some
wet-behind-the-ears brat at a cookie-cutter school...


--
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Trumped-up charges against Suzanne. Demurrer #1.
Date: 10 Oct 92 02:26:29 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu

From article by gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga):
> <26094@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>>gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
> [re: Suzanne]
>>>Ask her why water evaporates.
>>
>>That'd be as good as her crcle proof, I'm sure. I think I remember reading
>>that one, but it was a long time ago.
> 
> I'll give you a hint...  She says it's because her god *wants* it to
> evaporate.
> 
> No, really!


Now ask me HOW it evaporates :-)
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: More GooseSteppingForJesus
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:43:45 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <16094@umd5.umd.edu> spinoza@next08wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.212921.13547@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com
>(drieux, just drieux) writes:
>> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>> ]
>> ] And no, I'm not talking about "police" of any kind.
>> ]
>> ] Simon
>>
>>
>> Hum....
>>
>> Isn't this the same Gentleman who's vision of America
>> is that in the Future the Police will be trencheoning
>> down Pro_Choicers?????
>>
>>
>> So How do you plan to 'enforce' your AntiAbortion laws?
>>
>No, no,no. Come the Revolution, drieux, there won't BE a NEED for
>ENFORCEMENT, 'cause everyone will WANT what The Grand Inquisitor, His
>Eminenence Simon Booth wants for America. Of course, this means that lots
>o' folks will have already competed for the honor of being
>FirstUpAgainstTheWallWhentheRevolutionComes, but ya know what they say: ya
>wanna make omelets, ya gotta crack a few eggs (or in this case, a few
>heads, but since the individuals involved are already born, which of
>course makes it okay.......)
>
> ciao.
>jeff
>
>"I believe a woman owns her  body and
>what she does with it is her own business, period.
>		Period."
>		- Independent Candidate for Vice President,
>			James Stockdale
What revolution?? My story is to illustrate the threat of fascism as a
backlash against liberals.  I am not a fascist of any kind.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: adesai@leland.Stanford.EDU (Atit Dinkarrai Desai)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 22:00:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.165424.29965@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Martin L. Adkins) writes:
 

>>As to the charge
>>that all these people that have the "gall" to disagree with the politically
>>correct are "near fascist", is that like being sorta pregnant? 
>
>Hardly.  Sorry if you're confused; take a look at the word "fascism" in
>the dictionary:
>
>  "A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and
>  race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic
>  government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social
>  regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."
>
>There.  "Near-fascist".  We have no dictator yet.  Do you see tendencies
>toward the rest of the definition?  I sure do.  Talk to me about
>Buchanan et al if you see something in Buchanan, Robertson, Gramm that
>I'm missing.

ad:Dictatorial powers, hummn, let me see ....
   There are a number of executive orders which can go in effect and do not
   require Congressional approval in the event of a national emergency.
   Over the years, these orders autherizes the President to do as he likes
   such as relocation of populations, control of ALL communications media,
   airports, and aircraft, ....
 
  I could go on, but you get the point. You can find these exective orders
  in th Federal Register. In addition, its my understanding that there
  many security council orders that deal with internal unrest and are 
  of course TOP SECRET. 

  Recently, FEMA was created by an executive order and allowed the Pres
  to declare an emergency. Funny thing is a lot of the budget for
  FEMA is black, many of its origanl executives were from the California
  State police unit for political operations( cant remember the names, but 
  Louis Jefria(sp?) comes to mind), hummmn...

  Originally, the crime bill allowed the president to declare a national
  emergency because of drugs!!!. I don't know if that provision is still
  there or not, but you can see the encroachment on civil liberties in all
  the other provisions.

  So the only thing preventing a dictatorship, is George Bush declaring so.
  Just one sentence away ...

 Everything is in place for a fascist state, all that is needed is a 
 "German Parliment" type event like some "eco-terrorists" (read special
  forces) taking over a nuclear plant, and wham! 

 George Bush said he would do ANYTHING to get re-elected....



adesai@leland.stanford.edu



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 05:44:05 GMT

cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>|cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>|>Let the galled jade wince.
>|How utterly literary of you.

>Why, thank you!

Oh, you're more than welcome.

BTW, in case I neglected to mention it earlier, I certainly thank
_you_ for clearing up any lingering doubts I may have had!

>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      

                   -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:07:22 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <1992Oct12.215528.3631@acd4.acd.com>, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill
Overpeck) wrote:
> 
> Based on your incisive analysis, it probably wasn't a good 
> analogy.  How about this:  When a drug user buys and ingests a
> substance cut with rat poison and subsequently dies, are the
> anti-drug laws to blame? 

In point of fact, I believe that they contribute substantially to the
blame.

When was the last time you heard of someone dying from drinking "bathtub
gin"?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion