HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Planned Non-Parenthood? (to Rescorla)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 21:49:29 GMT

In <1993Jan21.000136.29987@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>In article <1993Jan20.223345.12792@tc.fluke.COM> emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:

Trivia: I believe this is the first time I've followed up to a Rescorla
post.  Like Brian Kendig, he appears to be a victim of the "squeaky 
wheel" syndrome ("The squeaky wheel gets the grease").  These two don't
seem to squeak as loudly as the regulars I listed in the "Susan Garvin
fan club".

Autrement dit:

One of my new year's resolutions is to pay more attention to thoughtful
pro-choice posters.  As here, although I hope Eric can be even more
thoughtful in the future.

>>If the abortion industry weren't such a lucrative business and profits
>>were'nt involved, perhaps this would be a trustworthy option.  However,
>>when money is involved, even the best people can be tempted to overlook
>>the good of the patient.

Planned Parenthood did close to 200,000 abortions, and did less than 10,000
cases of prenatal care per annum in the last three years.  That seems
to suggest something.

>Huh? Mr. Emery, PPFA, for instance, is a non-profit organization,
>therefore (by definition) profit is not involved.

When Faye Wattleton's salary was nearing the $200,000 mark, I decided
to consider most of that as profit.  The head of Salvation Army, to cite
another extreme, only got ~10% of that at the same time.

BTW why restrict your attention to PP?

> As far as
>I know, abortions are not particularly lucrative. Ob/Gyn's get
>much more money for a birth than for an abortion.

Figures, please.

And be careful not to count 9 months of prenatal care in the costs.

>                        Don't believe anything you hear.

Now, now, PP isn't *that* bad. :-)

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
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.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 04:16:21 GMT

In article <C1L2tE.79E@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jj6707@meibm7.cen.uiuc.edu (John E Jablonski) writes:
>In article <1993Jan28.032831.4919@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>|> >In article <1993Jan24.200741.9018@hobbes.kzoo.edu> k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
>|> >>Ted, do you honestly believe that anyone--ANYONE--thinks abortion is a
>|> >>good thing?  That anyone wants _more_ abortions to occur?  That
>|> >>pro-choicers, upon hearing about an abortion, think "oh, good,
>|> >>that fetus was killed, that's great"?
>|> >>
>|> 	Why is it so difficult to grasp the concpet that the State ought to
>|> be neutral on most of the decisions we make in our lives?  Why do you think
>|> the power of government must be used to either encourage or discourage?  How's
>|> about the State just gets the heck off our backs now and then?
>|> 	These big-government conservatives are getting to be a pain.
>
>The government can't be neutral in the case of abortion.  Someone has to speak
>for the unborn child, the pro-choice crowd obviously isn't.  And even you say the
>government should be neutral in "most of the decisions we make."
	(Shrug)  This ground has been plowed knee-deep in the past.  The term
"unborn child", aside from being an oxymoron, is emotionalistic sloganeering.
They are not *persons*.  A pregnant woman most certainly is.  Therefore, I
feel her rights are primary.  I am as convinced of the rightness of this
idea as you are of its opposite.
	The State can and should  stay neutral in situations in which
there is no consensus on the correct position.  This is one of them.

>  Oh, and there's a big difference between an unborn child and tonsils.

	True.  Tonsils are real, for one thing.
	My point was, however, that an abortion is like any other
medical procedure.  Refusing to ban it is not equivalent to encouraging it.
We do not yet live in a society in which everything not forbidden is
mandatory.
The_Doge
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 04:47:52 GMT

In article <nyikos.727625975@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1993Jan19.063758.19883@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>[Lots of idiocy from Dr Giggles deleted to save your stomache]
>
>>Actually, many would say you'd have to do considerable climbing to
>>reach the level Susan occupies, PHoney.
>>Come on, you can do it. Drag yourself out of that little cesspool you
>>call a mind...
>
>Anyone can say such things about anybody.  The trick is to back them
>up.
>
[Excerpt deleted, since it's out of context, and meaningless babbling]

>Since I last saw Mark make the audacious "26 week" claim, I have
>posted clear evidence that either a baby was aborted by Tiller no
>earlier than 26 1/2 weeks after fertilization, or Susan Garvin
>was mistaken (unless she was lying) about a certain woman being a
>patient of Tiller.  I am still waiting for Mark and Susan to resolve
>this little disagreement between them.
>
No disagreement PHoney. It's pretty obvious to all but the most simple
minded that the fetus Dr. Tiller aborted was (as was clearly stated in
the story Susan posted) completly non-viable, due to deformations.
This has been discussed before, of course, but the infamous
NyikosNewsReader must have deleted it, so as to allow you to preserve
your illusions a little longer.

>Tiller uses an abortion technique incompatible with using the
>lungs, liver, and kidneys of the unborn child in question for
>transplantation to save the lives of up to four wanted babies.
>
Which cannot be done in cases such as Susan cited, due to the massive
deformities responsible for the abortion, PHoney.

>He also disposes of the remains in an incinerator.
>
Is that supposed to make some sort of point PHoney?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers 
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:52:29 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article by chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman):
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>>>> <objecting to calling abortion a holocaust>> 
>>>> and to this day is extremely 
>>>> hurtful in the memories of the Jewish people and their friends.

>>> Why?  Because, sad to say, many who grieve over the holocaust
>>> yet commit the same crimes by accepting abortion of the youngest,
>>> most fragile of us.

>> Have you noticed that many Jews, including those who lost relatives
>> to the Holocaust, are pro-choice?  

> That's EXACTLY what I was saying!

If that's exactly what you were saying, perhaps you should upgrade your
word selection process, so that your words are a closer approximation
of what you mean.

>> They don't seem impressed with _your_ comparison.

> Nor I with their failure to learn from the horrors of the past.

Why do you say that?  Did the Jews do something wrong?

-- 
Chris Lyman   /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /   Disclaimer:  I said WHAT?
    "If you wants to get elected president, you'se got to think up some
     memoraboble homily so's school kids can be pestered into memorizin'
     it, even if they don't know what it means." -- Walt Kelly, "Pogo" 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
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: Mon, 25 Jan 93 00:01:27 GMT

In article <C1Bw00.G0L@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.220623.11480@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>Perhaps you should go sit with a few dying cancer patients. Try bone
>>cancer, for starters. Then you can graduate to some of the nastier
>>varieties.
>
>I have.  Yet, there is not way I would have killed this person.  even if 
^^^^^^^^

Gee, Paul.  And just how old are you?

>someone is dying in pain, there is no right to murder.  This particular
>individual chose not to go to the hospital and take the pain medication
>or undergo hopeless operations.  I can respect that decision.  What I could
>not do is kill someone because they are in pain.  People are not animals to
>be put our of their misery.  If I were dying in agony, I would not want to
>have my family kill me.  I would not want that on their consciences for hte
>rest of their lives.  I would not want to die knowing that my family had
>killed me.

Ok, now how about if _I_ wanted to kill _myself_.  No family members involved,
nobody "pulls the trigger" on me.  All the doctor has to do is attach a small
tube to my IV.  If _I_ decide that _my_ life is no longer worth living attached
to a small army of machines, _I_ can trigger the event that kills _me_.

Would you allow me the dignity of doing that?

>
>God can and has healed people in the last stages of cancer.  Even if I knew

You will be posting your evidence of the proof of God shortly, won't you?

>for sure that God would not heal someone in my family, I could not kill them.

But will you allow them to make their own decisions about their lives?
--
=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???=
= "Love can break your heart." =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Mark Cochran covering up a lie?
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:53:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.041418.9199@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>>> Any attempts to get me to
>>> violate ethical and legal standards is gong to be ignored.

>> Cochran, I have a newspaper article in front of me which names
>> Baby Theresa's neonatalogist, along with the hospital where he
>> works.  

> Post away [Mr. Holtsinger]. I'm not going to violate ethical and legal 
> standards for you or anybody else. 

Naming the hospital wouldn't violate ethical or legal standards.
It's public information, Cochran.  Since you've refused to name
the hospital, I have to suspect that you're lying -- you really
don't know the physicians who were associated with Baby Theresa's
case.  This is in addition to your original lie that organ donor
recipients had been found for Baby Theresa's organs.

>Mark Cochran          


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58046 news.admin.policy:1151
From: rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Kodak's Official Policy (formerly: Want to adopt)
Date: 26 Jan 93 12:39:23 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: Ditka Policy Institute

In article <1993Jan25.214821.29561@Happy-Man.com> Irving_Wolfe@Happy-Man.com writes:
>As a shareholder in Kodak, and hence (part of) the ultimate 
>authority and employer at the company, I thought I should share my 
>perspective on this.  
>
>1.  Kodak should immediately fire any employee who criticizes it in
>public, except that the reporting of a crime or suspected crime to
>a law enforcement agency shall not constitute public criticism.

Wanna join the Happy Fascists League of America?  Sheesh, man, one
does not give up one's civil rights by virtue of employment.  If anyone
who works for Kodak, from the chairwoman of the board down to the
janitor at the truck dock, wants to stand up on a soapbox and proclaim
that "Kodak sucks rocks", then have every right to do so -- and Kodak
has no recourse.  (Assuming, of course, that the person on the soapbox
isn't engaging in slander -- but then again, that applies to everyone,
whether or not they work for Kodak.)

What Kodak employees say on their own time and with their own resources is
not the concern of Kodak -- they may not like it, in fact, they may really
hate it -- but they can't touch it.  If any Kodak employee is disciplined
in any way for exercising their 1st-Amendment rights, I would strongly
recommend that they contact the ACLU.

If anyone in Kodak's management is so brain-dead as to think they
can restrict their employee's speech, then they deserve to be
dragged through a protracted, nasty, bad-publicity-generating
lawsuit that ends with a huge punitive fine.  One hopes that
the folks running the company have more sense -- and more awareness
of their employee's rights -- than that.

---Rsk
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:55:20 GMT

In article <C1Jw1x.DKr@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >I explained the connection in another article.  I'm not
> >sure if that was the connection Susan may or may not have been
> >referring to, but I did explain it.  I'll explain it again,
> >since Reverend Holtsinger may have missed it.  The unsafe
> >nature of abortions in the 19th century was at least partly
> >responsible for the passage of laws prohibiting abortions
> >in many cases.  This was done to protect women.  The historical
> >rates of death and injury among women who have had illegal
> >and medically unsafe abortions in turn influenced Justice
> >Blackmun's approach to the issue.
> 
> Mr. Kaflowitz, the main reason abortion was made illegal in the 19th
> century was the discovery of fertilization and the fact the AMA was
> actively lobbying Congressmen with their view that life began at
> fertilization.

You are saying that injury to women had nothing at all to do
with it?  I didn't say it was entirely due to that cause, but you
write as though that's what I said.  Very unrealistic of you.

Also, you write as though your answer is the all of it.  You are,
therefore, wrong.

I also don't think someon who said the following really has much
of a moral leg to stand on:

"My final action will be to abort all homeless and poor welfare families
because I have decided that they are not living productive, fulfilling
lives, and I am God.  These are humans, because they are scraping out a
sparse survival in our world, but since I'm God I feel it would be more
compassionate if I ended their misery."
 - Edward Simmonds (vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu),
   in article <C04w4u.CBs@news.cso.uiuc.edu>

Dean Kaflowitz
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: graveyard visit?
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:48:15 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
#
  [ My tasteless joke deleted. ]
# 
# 	Jokes like this, if jokes they are, should be taken out and shot.  If,
# however, you really meant it, then it is you who should be taken out and shot.
# 	By the way, this implies no disrespect for the right to life.  A person
# who willfully compounds murder with cannabilism has waived his right to life.
# 	Sorry if this sounds humorless, but this is really sick, sick, sick,
# beyond reasonable bounds.

It was an example of how dark my humor can become after spending my
weekend defending women's health clinics from zealots with posters
depicting fetal remains in vivid color blown up to ridiculous size.
These people will chase clients to the door, if given the chance,
pushing such images into their faces in an attempt to
`compassionately' persuade them to skip their appointments.

Suzanne Forgach's petty screech was enough to inspire me to shoot
right back with some of her own medicine.

Nevertheless, you have overreacted.  Abortion is not murder,
regardless of your opinion.  Furthermore, *NOBODY* waives his right to
life by expressing an opinion.  I shouldn't have to tell anyone this,
but *you* SIR seem to have trouble understanding that exercising one's
rights can not ever imply a `waiver' of one's other rights.  Fact: one
may not, through any kind of action or inaction, waive one's natural
rights.  They are, by definition, immutable.


-- 
+---------------------------+  I wasn't expecting it.  When Danny Elfman
| J H Woodyatt              |  sang the words, `goo goo ga choo,' Sunday
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  night, I cracked.  Some horrors are too
+---------------------------+  large to shade out.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Subject: Re: The pro-choice thought police in action
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1993Jan23.182821.8437@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 02:45:34 GMT


In article <1993Jan23.182821.8437@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

 >"Lawyers have no First Amendment right to use whatever
 > language they want in a courtroom, the U.S. Court of
 > Appeals for the Ninth Circuit made clear July 1.  Thus,
 > a lawyer who was representing abortion protesters at
 > a criminal trial, and who contravened a court order
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 > not to use words such as ``murderers'' and ``killers''
 > that went to defenses the trial court had excluded,
 > was properly held in contempt on 20 occasions.  
 > Zal v. Steppe, CA 9, No. 91-55579, 7/1/92."
 >
 > The United States Law Week, 8/4/92, pg. 2062

A lawyer is an Officer of the Court.  As an Officer of the Court, they
are bound by the rules of judicial conduct, which includes obeying a
judge's order.  If a lawyer disagrees with a ruling, they have the option of
appeal.  To ignore a ruling and usurp the system is contempt.  Or do
you prefer a lawless society, DODie?

Scott Safier                                   corwin+@cmu.edu
Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
        
member, T.S.A.K.C.  S2/6 b g- l z n+ o+(+) x+(+) a-(-) u-  v j+ 
                    B0/1 h f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++

If you have, after buying three cars from the same company, found
they're all lemons, why would you listen to anyone who would try to
convince you to buy a fourth?

The same thing applies to this issue.
   Steve Chaney, on why he does not date African American women
   1/14/93

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Use of Force
Date: 24 Jan 1993 01:42:23 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) says:

>
>Michael Bray, One of OpResKrews Convicted
>Terrorists is advocating the "use of Force"
>in upcoming operations to National News
>Media Sources, reported moments ago.


     Hmmm.  It must be the spirit of "renewed hope" spreading 
     out across the land.  Perhaps Bray refers to his enthusiastic
     feelings as we all join together, hand in hand, rebuilding
     America.

     {Bing}  {Bing}

     Ask not for who the bells were tolled.

>
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life begins at ...
Date: 27 Jan 93 07:50:23 GMT
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>Just what is an "individual life" supposed to be?
>
>Jerome Lejeune, the geneticist who discovered the basis of Down's Syndrome,
>has some fascinating ideas on that.

Pity you didn't include them for the rest of us to enjoy.  You're
really good at leaving out key information, by the way.  Did you 
know that?

>_________________________________excerpt_______________________
>>>Ron Graham (quoting Nat Hentoff?)
>>Lyman
>
>>> Once implantation takes place, this being has all the genetic
>	^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> information within that makes each human being unique.
>			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Wrong. Wrong. WrongWrongWrongWrongWrongWrongWrongWrongWrongWrong!!!!!!
>
>Truly a case of massive denial, as will now be seen.
>____________________________________end of excerpt_______________________

Anyone who asserts that genes make each person unique is operating in
a state of extreme ignorance and/or naivite.  To claim that anyone is
solely the product of their genes is easily refuted by pointing out
that one's knowledge of set theory, quantum physics, or LR(1) parsers
is NOT instinctual and is, in fact, learned.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:40:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.232838.23349@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
[Chaney/Hall's bigotry deleted]
#Hey, if anyone's interested, they should write for a transcript of
#yesterday's (01/22/93's) Sally Jesse Raphael (who are they?) show.
#It featured three women who could only stomach relationships with
#men of any race but their own.  This was due to having been raped
#and abused over time (since childhood) by men of their own races.
#Two of the women were white (with black husbands) and one woman was
#black (with a white husband).

I could tell you about other racists who claim that their
racism is justified, as well.  

I was raped by a man who was not of my race.  I don't
assume that the rapist represented his race any more than
I assume that he represented his sex.

#People have their reasons for their preferences in a mate, Cathi, 
#and maybe they're legitamate reasons.

Hmmm. 

If Suzanne were at all concerned with consistency, she would
realize that her comments on homosexuality are at odds with
her comments here and try to reconcile them.  I predict that
she'll be unable to do so without citing her religious beliefs.
I wonder if she'll realize, too, that she'll be implying that
her religion has no problem at all with racism if she does
so.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal