HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another very good reason to vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:29:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.182629.25108@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

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

>>> No, Holtsinger, he said that all women deserve support of their right to
>>> choose.

>> 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.

That depends on the state law.  My point still stands. 

> 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.

Right, he assumes that all women are pro-choice, that all women would actually
_want_ to receive support for their right to an abortion, and that all women
think alike.  That's sexist.

> 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.

You make the same sexist argument that Chris Lyman made.  Your analogy
contains the implicit assumption that "some women" (probably very few women)
would not want to receive support for their right to escape from an abusive 
relationship, just as "some women" would not want to receive support  
for their right to an abortion.

Your analogy does not compare to abortion, since *many* women are pro-life,
not just "some women" (i.e. very few women). 

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



Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31408 talk.religion.misc:13890
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Study of Numbers 5 in relation to abortion discussion
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:34:15 GMT
	<12890@inews.intel.com> <1992Aug12.174634.12433@cs.yale.edu>

In article <1992Aug12.174634.12433@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>> JPS says belly distend and thighs sag which
>>is exactly what would happen in the case of abortion.
>You keep saying that. Do you have a medical reference?

You need a medical reference for that? Look, it's quite simple: Mother pregnant,
belly EXtends and thighs build up to support the load. Mother aborts and belly
DIStends and thighs sag, why? Because skin does not readily shrink, that is
why you get stretch marks. On abortion, the womb shrinks and the thigh muscles
atropy, but the skin does not shrink, it DIStends and sags. And for that you
need a medical reference? 

>>I see that as an abortion, as have many other Bible scholars much more 
>>knowledgable than me.
>Argument from authority?

Now I give you references and you complain of argument from authority. Look,
I know you better that this. You will not win by trying to attack me. Why?
Because I will not fight. Please attack the data and the conclusion, state
how you draw different conclusions. Rise to the level of expectations. I
expect greatness from you. Not agreement, greatness. I know you will not let
me down.

>Bullshit. I looked at your argument, considered what
>I knew about the texts, and came away unconvinced that abortion was
>what was being discussed. I did not "ignore the evidence." Rather
>I examined it and decided it was insufficient to draw the kind
>of strong conclusion you are attempting to draw.

And you think I don't know that? That's cool! You have that right!

>Perhaps it's time you learned the difference between closed-mindedness
>and simple skepticism, Mr. Harvey.
>-Ekr

Please, be skeptical. But perhaps, instead of calling me closed-minded, why
not enlighten us with why you are skeptical. Please explain your skepticism,
I'm all ears. Of course, you are not required to have a reason to be a
skeptic, but if you do, please explain. What, in your opinion, is going on
in Numbers5? Rise to the level of greatness that you are. The jury awaits
your deposition.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Feminists for Life officer responds - Part 2 (LONG, Darcy only)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 06:42:36 GMT

Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <11AUG199217262456@venus.lerc.nasa.gov>  ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:
>>      Overall, the rate of physical complications found in abortion is
>>      at least 10%, versus 2% for carrying a child full-term.

>Since everything I've seen says the opposite, I'd like to see some
>documentation for this.

I asked for confirmation (or even a source) for this figure.  None
was given.  Since the C-section rate in this country approaches 50%
in some areas, either this statement is a lie or the author is using
a very bizarre definition of "physical complication".

Since this statement is apparently still being posted after being
called into question, I tend to assume the former.

>Larry Margolis, 

                        -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: The "abortion on demand" myth:  anti-choice scare tactics
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:22:21 GMT

> = margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>   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.

Hear!  Hear!  Furthermore, to suggest that these 3 doctors should not perform
3rd tri abortions is to say that there should be no (legal) 3rd tri abortions
FOR ANY REASON.  For some pro-lifers, it seems acceptable to deny women 
medically necessary abortions in an effort to stop non-existent abuses.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:58:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.222433.17054@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> 
bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

> It's not bullshit.  

Yes, your 71% figure is pure bullshit.  That figure includes many
Americans who support restrictions on abortion.  

> As you pointed out, Americans
> in large numbers (like the MAJORITY!) support CHOICE, 

A majority of Americans support restrictions on abortion.
Call that "choice" if you wish, but don't deny the facts.

> Contrary to those
> false claims by the anti-abortion movement, the FOCA will not ban
> states from limiting late term abortions, 

I haven't seen any evidence that the Freedom of Choice Act will
allow the states to prohibit post-viability abortions, since 
the interpretation of the "health" exception for abortion could
be defined very broadly (perhaps including "mental health"). 

> prohibiting minors from
> having abortions, 

I've seen no evidence which supports your claim.

> or provide for one nickel of government monies.

I've seen no evidence which supports your claim.

> This abortion on demand mantra of yours obscures the truth, exactly as
> does everything else you utter.  

I think you don't want to recognize that most Americans do not
support unrestricted abortion on demand.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Wanted: True Conservative Positions
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 12 Aug 92 11:43:31 CDT


In article <1992Aug11.205628.29187@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
> Wanted: What are the true conservative positions on:
> 1) Foreign Aid?
>      a) Economic	
>      b) Military
>      c) Aiding insurgents/rebels
> 
> 2) Immigration
>      -- laws restricting, etc.
>      -- citizenship, etc.
> 3) Minimum Wage
> 4) Solution to "racism"
> 5) the "Buy American" idea
> 6) Workers going to other countries to reduce labor costs and reduce
>    cost per item.

7) Abortion
        Is the conservative position that the government should stay out 
        of the individuals decision or that one must support "pro-life" 
        legislation to be a conservative?

        (Barry Goldwater recently said that the Republican party should 
        drop its anti-abortion stand because it will rip the Republican
        party apart.) 

> Feel free to respond but I kindly ask to keep it more objective than cynical.
> 
-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32995 alt.abortion.inequity:3219
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 20:50:19 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Aug20.202812.12068@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>What do people think of the idea?

I like the idea of a moderated abortion newsgroup, but I think there
would be lots of problems with it.

As an alternate suggestion, what about a moderated abortion mailing
list (people would get themselves on the list simply by mailing the
moderator/one of the moderators)?  This has many advantages over a
newsgroup, probably the biggest of which is that it's *much* easier to
give it a try to see if it'll work.

Various problems I can see with both proposals:

Abortion is an emotional issue and flames spring naturally from that.
We might be able to deal with that on a "go ahead and flame -- just do
it by primate e-mail" basis.  I think this is a bit of a plug for a
mailing list, since I think it's less of a transition to go from
mailing list to private e-mail than from a newsgroup to private
e-mail.

How do you define "flame"?  Do you disallow articles which make valid
points in a nasty manner?  Do you disallow articles which make valid
points alongside ad hominem attacks?

Who the heck are you going to get to moderate the sort of *volume*
we've got?  I think you'd have to have multiple moderators if you were
dealing with a large volume.  This of course promptly runs you into
the problem of moderators with different standards.

I have real doubts about the viability of a non-flaming abortion
group.  Really, if you eliminate the flames and garbage and went
straight to the issues, I think it rapidly get to the point of "well,
our premises are different."  I'm willing to give either a newsgroup
or a mailing list a try anyway, though.


Advantages of a newsgroup:

It's really just a much more convenient forum.  The quotation
capabilities alone help tremendously.

It's easier for new people to find about and enter.

It'd probably have a higher volume.


Advantages of a mailing list:

It's much easier to get started.

It could potentially have a less distant atmosphere, which *might*
lead to less flames.

It'd be easier for people to just flame the person they're mad at via
e-mail instead of inflicting the flame on everyone.

It'd probably have a lower volume.



If there's any interest in a moderated-against-flames abortion mailing
list, I'll post a specific proposal.

--
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Putting out the fire, sort of
Date: 23 Aug 92 02:21:35 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <Bt7y3F.FHF@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>To Steve, though,
>I will NOT apologize -- save on one condition:  he comes down here to 
>receive it in person.  If he wants my respect, he'll have to put forth some
>effort to earn it.

"people don't offer to apologize, kebbie. they just apologize."
				<1992Aug2.124003.24597@crd.ge.com>

							- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32768 talk.politics.misc:40977 alt.politics.clinton:2422
From: blais@milo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Kristin Blais)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Other Flip-Floppers on abortion
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:41:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii

In article <1992Aug18.140511.17562@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>I think you might be able to add Bill Clinton to your list of
>Democrats who have changed their positions on abortion.  Here's
>what my local paper had to say about Clinton's changing stance 
>on abortion:
>
>  "Clinton's aides, meanwhile, also have used the word evolution
>   to describe their candidate's shift in views on abortion.  As
>   governor of Arkansas, Clinton declared that ``I am opposed to
>   abortion.''  In 1989, he signed state legislation requiring
>   parental notification.  As a candidate for president, Clinton
>   has moved to a more clear-cut abortion-rights position.  He
>   said he would not veto Medicaid funding of abortions for poor
>   women." 
>
>   The Raleigh News and Observer, Monday, August 17, 1992
>
>
>It appears that the radical pro-abortionists in the Democratic party 
>have forced Mr. Clinton to embrace a minority-held position. 
>

How? One can flip-flop only if one reverses their position on
something. If Bill Clinton changed from signing a bill for parental
notification, to saying no to parental notification 
that  would be flip flop. I do not see parental notification
and Medicaid funding of abortions as being on opposite
sides of the issue. Additionally he has said
repeatedly that he "does not believe in abortion" and
"is opposed to abortion" during the convention interviews and 
during the primaries. One can be both anti-abortion and
pro-choice as I am. (I will never have an abortion for 
religious reasons, but I don't believe I should force 
other people to follow my religious beliefs.) Also note
that you haven't provided any statistics
to back up your claim that his position on these two
aspects of abortion are "a minority-held position".
minority where? The Republican party? The Democratic
Party? The general populance- most of whom are independants?
You would well advised to review the the percentage of 
the general population that is Republican versus Democrat
and multiply it by percentage of the Republican party that approves
of the party platform on abortion. Now THAT's a minority
of the US population. 
:-)
Kristin
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Another departure
Summary: And that's a wrap, folks.
Keywords: adieu, farewell, parting is such...
Date: 23 Aug 92 00:58:56 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

I'm afraid that time pressures (most notably around a new job) are claiming 
another casualty.  After the next day or two, I'll be unsubscribing to 
talk.abortion until further notice.

I'd like to thank a few parties, though:

--Susan Garvin and Dean Kaflowitz.  Some of the levelest heads around.

--Joy Haftel, Len Howard, and Jim Miller, for reminding me that there *are*
people who manage to both be pro-life and compassionate.

--Doug Holtsinger and Steve Kellmeyer, for reminding me how rare the previous 
category is and strengthening my resolve never to give in.

--Beth Bartley.  You've taken a very honest and very difficult stance; don't 
let Grand Inquisitor Keegan get you down.

--Jay Stein, Chris Lyman and others, whose tales have ensured LA area clinics 
with another defender should it become necessary (something I hope never 
comes to pass).

--Steve Chaney, for hours of sheer entertainment and providing friends of 
mine with ideas for dissertations in abnormal psychology.

--and finally, the one and only Suzanne Forgach.  With cluelessness like 
yours, I have every faith that the pro-life movement cannot possibly succeed. 
:-)

Take care, folks.  It's been an interesting several months.

Tim Lynch 
BITNET:  tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET:  tlynch@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP:  ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.caltech.edu@hamlet.caltech.edu
"We need a leader who will stop the Republican attempt - through laws 
and through the courts - to tell us what God to believe in, and how 
to apply that God's judgment to our schoolrooms, our bedrooms and
our bodies. "
			-- Gov. Mario Cuomo, 7/15/92
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What is Sex to God?
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:13:39 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

><adams.713117979@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>><adams.712851780@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) said:
>>>Seems to me if Jesus wanted to tell his disciples that, he would have just
>>>said that.  But he specifically mentions hating parents without talking
>>>about *why*.  He says, if you don't hate you parents (no reason specified)
>>>then you cannot be my follower.
>>
>>>In other scripture he specifcally talks about coming here to cause
>>>derision among families, to pit father against son, and mother against
>>>daughter.
>>
>>These two verses both tell the same story.  Loving Christ and following Him
>>will cause the break-up of families, differences between people and all
>>sorts of other problems.

>No, no.  Jesus explictely claims to have come here *to cause* families to
>break-up.  He doesn't say, "Because of your love for me you may need to
>turn away from your families."  He says he came here to pit father against
>son, etc...

Basically, Christ was describing the inevitable reaction on earth to His
coming.  Light would fight darkness, good would fight evil, even to the
destruction of familial relationships.  Read the next few verses...

>>Basically, the Love you show for God must be so great and total, that the
>>love you show to others seems like hate by comparrison.

>Uh Steve, aren't you commanded to love your enemies?

Yes.  But the point is you are to love Christ MORE than anyone else.  So
much more so that your love for them is so miniscule compared to your love
for Christ that on the scale :  Hate..........|..........Love, youre love
for them is closer to Hate than your love for God.  See specifically
Matthew 10:37-38.

>>>Yours is a somewhat liberal interpretation of his *exact* words.

>>You're not the first to tell me that...;-)  But then again, most of my
>>fundamentalist friends flame me more than atheists do...

>Well, you are more well reasoned than most I've dealt with here on the
>net.  We just may have to agree to disagree.

Perhaps so....what do you think of the above?

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
Keywords: puberty, surrealistic
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:09:08 GMT

> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>...myrmydons...

>(Possibly you meant "mymidons" - a perfect description of pro-life
                      ^^^^^^^^
>religious nuts.)  

Oops.  Possibly we *both* meant "myrmidons".



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:48:30 GMT

Again I try to re-post in this manner:

In <nyikos.713720148@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>In <1992Aug11.043255.31579@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>>In  <1992Aug11.022942.11142@wdl.loral.com>  bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:

>>> Where do you even get the idea that pro-choicers wouldn't tolerate
>>> pro-life activism in their sons and daughters and choose to punish
>>> them with emotional or, worse yet, PHYSICAL abuse?

>I'm sure if a father coerced (legally, in some states: see my
>COERCED ABORTION post) his daughter into an incest-derivative abortion,
>she'd hear no end of abuse from him if she did this.  

>Another example along the same lines.  The head of the local Birthright
>related the story of how he tracked down a tearful single mother-to-be
>living in a car next to a "landfill" [euphemism in the tradition of
>"pregnancy termination"] who had been told by her father: "Get an
>abortion or get out."  Her first coherent words to him were, "Is there
>any way I can keep this baby?"

>>Since he's pro-force, he apparently believes that everyone else is
>>the same way.

>Pro-force?  That's a good one.  I'll have to remember it when I once
>again post on the subject of coerced abortion.

>>> Oh, were you just joking? (Especially with the part about you being
>>> right being a `common occurance?') Well then, pardon me for taking
>>> your blatherings seriously.

>>Unfortunately, no.  I guess you *are* unfamiliar with Chaney's ravings.

>>[Examples of kicking Chaney while he is down, omitted.]

Peter Nyikos
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: There's every reason to vote for Bush
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:16:18 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <oioee3o@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes
in response to John Moses idiotic statement about suffering the
consequences of driving and pregnancy: 

>Ayup, dammit.  We all know that drivers who get into car
>accidents have NO RIGHT to seek medical treatment for their
>injuries.  Only wimp liberals would attempt to treat their
>lacerations, broken bones, etc., and try to weasel out of
>their GOD-imposed responsibility to take care of the injuries
>they CHOSE to create, through their WILLFUL, CONSENSUAL driving.
>Amen, brother.

And, if you do hit someone when you drive and injure them, you will be
forced to donate tissue, blood, and/or organs for up to 9 months to
save their lives.  And, don't forget it!

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion