HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject:  Oh, Dougie...
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 15:46:55 GMT


   Since Doug Holtsinger carps on about so many facets of choice,
he sidesteps the bulk of women that get abortions in America.  It
is a fact that most of those who have abortions, are ADULTS, they
do NOT use government money to pay for them, and they occur early
in the FIRST trimester.  Since Dougie babbles on about situations
that are not part of the majority of abortions in this country, I
wonder how he feels about those ADULT women who PAY FOR THEIR OWN
FIRST TRIMESTER abortions.  If Dougie objects to these abortions,
along with all of the extreme situations that he whines about, we
should probably point out that his whining suggests that he feels
the majority of abortions are okay.  If he objects to these, then
why on earth does he carp about the extreme situations?  If there
is NO abortion that is okay to Dougie, then maybe he should cease
implying that he objects ONLY to the extreme situations.  If Doug
thinks that by focusing his arguements on the extremes, he should
be able to paint a false picture of what abortion is, he has made
a big mistake.  He seems to think that those who read his garbage
are as stupid as he is.  Those that are for choice do not have to
lie, or mislead, or post items out of context.  Supporters of the
right to choose do have an advantage over the anti-abortion types
in America.  They have truth on their side.  When morons like our
boy Dougie call an embryo or a fetus an infant, he seems to think
that people will swallow his newspeak.  But redefining words will
not work.  So, Dougie, if you oppose ALL abortion, why don't your
ramblings reflect this?  Why do you go on as if there are certain
abortions that are okay?  You're a fake, Doug.  And a foolish one
at that.  Intolerant geeks like you remind me of a quote.  I have
no recollection of its source but it fits you like a glove!
   "Only error needs the support of government.  Truth can endure
by itself."
-- 
   "We're going to have the best educated American people in the
world."                              Dan Quayle - Sept. 21, 1988
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:10:46 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  <1992Aug20.142025.4064@spdc.ti.com>  serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
> In article <usglkrx.714260356@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K.
> >
> >   So, in other words, my husband and I should have been celibate up until
> >now (the first 2 years of our marriage), and should remain celibate for the
> >next 4 or 5?  We have been taking turns finishing up college degrees, and
> >are unable, finacially, to support a child (heck, there are times we can
> >barely support *ourselves*).  Maybe it works for some people, but I really
> >don't think that 7 years of celibacy would be the best thing for a marriage.
>
>   If you are not willing to accept responsibility for the possible failure
>   of contraception, then yes, you should consider celibacy.

They'll get an abortion.  That is acting responsibly.  What's your problem?

(If you want to claim that aborting an unwanted pregnancy is irresponsible,
you'll have to prove it, not merely assert it.)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Barry Goldwater
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:24:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

With such insightful analysis as this, I can see why Suzanne
has been hired by a political think-tank.  I just hope the
think-tank has a shallow end.

In article <1992Aug13.000256.27262@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article by keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
> > smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
> > -> Goldwater's been pro-choice for a long time.  I'm glad that
> > -> he's speaking up about it, but I agree with Jim - it's too
> > -> late.
> > i'm glad that it is (too late). i think the choice issue is the
> > sigle-most important factor which will swing the election to the
> > democrats.
> BLAH HA HA HA HA!   You wish!   The ABORTION issue is the single-most
> important factor which will swing the election to the pro-lifers!

Unemployment running close to 8%, high numbers of business
closings, a huge federal deficit, home sales still dragging
like crazy.  These are what will throw the election to the
pro-choicers if anything does.  While the Democratic
and Replublican candidates have opposing views on the issue
of abortion, it is not the issue of abortion that will
decide this election.  Your bizarre notion that this election
will be about the abortion issue, implied in your statement
above, is myopic.  There are bigger issues for most Americans.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:43:32 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug13.165127.39789@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> In  <1992Aug12.185151.2112@brandonu.ca>  mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>> In article <1992Aug12.180033.9957@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@watso
>> > In  <1992Aug11.182610.2104@brandonu.ca>  mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>> >> In article <1992Aug11.144923.40319@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@w
>> >> > In  <9779@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>  brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:
>> >> >> In <1992Aug10.134616.27853@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Trying to draw a bright line at
>> >> >> >conception is just as arbitrary as a line at viability or birth.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Birth isn't arbitrary, just wrong.
>> >> >
>> >> > Truth by Blatant Assertion.
>>
>> >> PS So what if it's truth by blatant assertion?  It's still truth.
>> >
>> > Asserting it as true doesn't make it true.
>>
>> Yes, I know that, I was just pointing out that it was unnecesary, perhaps
>> even misleading to say "Truth by Blatant Assertion" because it sounds as
>> though it wasn't actually truth.
> 
> Actually, I pointed out that it's "Truth by Blatant Assertion" *because*
> I believe it to not be true.  You're welcome to try to prove otherwise.

I can't prove otherwise, but I can show how ridiculous it seems to believe it
to be true (at least to me).
You say it's ok to pick the arbitrary point of birth to abort.  ie abortions
before birth are ok, but infanticide is wrong.  So the minute a baby
pops out, you would protect it, but if it were just a minute before
it popped out, you wouldn't mind killing it.  These entities are exactly
the same except in their position.  Sure the one who hasn't popped out
just yet is causing the mother a great deal (major understatement) of
discomfort, but she has been undergoing labour for x hours already, so what's
another minute of hell to allow a baby to be born?  This is all assuming
the mother's life is not at undue risk.  

Did I represent your position adequately?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:46:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.161225.18174@pwcs.stpaul.gov> 
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

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

>> If Lyman said "All people deserve support for their right to discriminate
>> against homosexuals", then that statement would carry a very objectionable
>> implication that all people would _want_ to discriminate against
>> homosexuals. 

> On the other hand, I could say, "Doug Holtsinger deserves to be spanked until
> his cheeks are bright pink."  That's not implying in the least that, "Doug
> Holtsinger _wants_ to be spanked until his cheeks are bright pink," is it?

Nobody believes that they should have a right to receive an unwanted
spanking.  

>Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
>"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger

Chris Lyman is a sexist for believing that all women think alike on 
the issue of abortion.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Good Bumper Sticker
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:18:03 GMT

From article by usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman):
> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc) writes:
> 
>>"If you don't trust me with a choice,
>>How can you trust me with a child?"
> 
> 
> "If the unborn could vote, abortion would be illegal"


A loud-mouth pro-abortionist once stompped up to my abortion information
table on campus because he didn't like my displayed bumper sticker:

              "Equal rights for unborn women"  


He screamed in a loud voice and demanded, 
"Should unborn women have the right to vote??!!"

My answer, "Not 'till their 18 of course!"

He either had to admit an unborn child was as much a human being as he was,
or he had to stomp away.




}:-)


heh heh heh heh
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Arthur S. DeMoss
Date: 10 Aug 92 22:13:51 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <1992Aug8.011339.10252@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:

>In article <1992Aug7.004243.11921@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
># In article <1992Aug6.211819.15692@advtech.uswest.com> 
># steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
># 
># > NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood are obviously multi-faceted
># > organizations.  Claiming they're solely "abortion on demand" is
># > dishonest bullshit.
># 
># You mean to say that NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood do support
># some restrictions on abortion? 

>Indeed. I suspect all three of them would support restrictions
>limiting those who perform abortions to licensed medical
>professionals.

Really?  When have they come out against the do-it-yourself "menstrual
extraction" kits being peddled (legally? does anyone know?) in various states?

Peter Ny.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: The Infamous `Value of a Man' Article
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 00:51:17 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
# 
# > But it isn't, because the patriarchal view is that men have the
# > natural right to control reproduction. And *that's* bizarre.
# 
# Some feminists argue that advocacy for abortion rights supports the
# patriarchal view.  See the attached article.
# 
# ------------
# Feminists for Life of America
# Abortion does not liberate women

[deleted]

Said article seemed to confuse `abortion' with `abortion rights' and
generally have a muddled argument all the way through.

It didn't persuade *me* that my support for a woman's right to control
her reproductive system translates into support for coerced abortions
at the behest of the Patriarchy.

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

Tired of `short, shameful confessions?'  Too old for `one line bios?'
`Rictus Hep' just too bizarre?  Try *NEW* ----> `I resolve...'  It's
the latest craze!  Tastes great!  Low in saturated fat!  And!!  It
doesn't leave you drowsy like those other brands!  New `I resolve...'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 05:20:12 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  <9812@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>  brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:
>
> In  <1992Aug12.194144.28416@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chan
> |>
> |> P = privacy
> |> A = invalidation of parental consent abortion laws
> |> S = legal consentual sex between adults & minors.
> |>
> |> The judge ruled:
> |>
> |> (P->A) -> (P->S)
> |>
> |> I know this will mean a big discussion over logic,
>
> In <1992Aug12.214730.14136@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margoli
> >You claim that the above proves that A -> S, and you call that logical?
>
> I think that the tautogy aluded to is:
>
>      (P -> A) -> (P -> S)
>      <->
>      P -> (A -> S)

But Chaney didn't claim P -> (A -> S); he claimed only (A -> S) - i.e.,
he said that pro-choice means pro-adult/child sex.

> As to whether classical proposition logic is applicable? I think that
> the jury is still out on that one.

It doesn't seem to apply to the land of the Borg, that's for sure.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32147 talk.politics.misc:40225
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 17 Aug 1992 20:56:47 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <1992Aug17.130709.26751@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
|> 
|> In article <1992Aug15.224848.29286@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
|> > In article <adams.713802433@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
|> > >michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
|> > >
|> > >
|> > >>Can the Gov't enforce a *relgious* doctrine that life begins at conception?
|> > 
|> > Did anyone ever say that life begins at conception was a religious issue?
|> > I know lots of pro-life people religious and athiests who are pro-life and
|> > who believe life begins at conception.  Athiest pro-lifers don't believe
|> > in a God.  In fact they deny its existence.  Yet you say that the
|> > pro-life view that life begins at conception is religious in nature?!?
|> > 
|> > The life begins at conception idea is mainly scientific and biological,
|> > not religious.  
|> 
|> The egg and sperm are both "life".
|> 
So is a malignent growth, a wart, hair.  Plastic surgery may be immoral.

|> It could be that you are using the term "life" when really refering to
|> an individual human being.  Of course that brings up the question of
|> identical twins, which become two individuals after conception.
|> 
|> -- 
|> 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:32800 alt.abortion.inequity:3201
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 21 Aug 92 11:34:44 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
> Just because I would allow abortions in cases of incest and rape does
> not mean that I do not believe a fetus has a right-to-life.  I do believe
> that a woman should not be forced go through a pregnancy caused my unwanted,
> illegal or immoral actions from a man.

It does show you to be inconsistant, though. After all, what does the
fetus do in the case of rape or incest that is different than a fetus
created from a consensual sex act? What is the difference in the fetuses?
Why is it allowable to kill one and not the other, why does one not
have "The right to life" while the other does? It smacks of hypocrisy
and the "punishment" theme.

If you must guess, let me alleviate it for you. I'm fully pro-choice.
I can no longer see a reason to legislate anything regarding when an
abortion can or cannot be allowed. I forget if it's rocker or Adrienne
Regard, but one of them holds the opinion (maybe both, or someone else)
that why should there be legislation for something that isn't a problem.
I concur.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: There's every reason to vote for Bush
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:41:31 GMT
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus

In article <nyikos.714081139@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

|> 
|> Which tissue and organs does a pregnant woman donate to her offspring?
|> Hell, she does not even donate blood corpuscles.  Plasma, yes.

The woman makes her lungs, digestive system, excretory system and
uterus avaliable to the fetus. Also remember that the ova was initially
the woman's (a significant donation don't you think?).

-- 
--Bruce

"Truth is ultimately a philosophical concept,...,
 and standards of truth are adequate for practical
 purposes if they are substantially more reliable 
 then the system undergoing evaluation"
				C. E. Metz
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: abortifacients
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:41:49 GMT

>>> = vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>>  = tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>   = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

>>> Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.

>> This is a false statement.  IUD abortions do not stop beating hearts.
>> Time to go shopping for a new .sig.

> I won't listen.  I won't listen.  Stop confusing us with facts.  We want 
> easy answers, not accuracy.  Next I suppose you'll want to point out that 
> a fetus might not have a brain, or can't write a diary.  Really, we're 
> not interested.

Saw this in somebody's .sig yesterday; it seems appropriate...


	"The great tragedy of science: the slaying of a beautiful
	hypothesis by an ugly fact". -- T.H. Huxley

Btw, Brian, you can stop regressing now. :-)


-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Tim Lynch's Imaginary Friend)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:14:49 GMT
     <1992Aug17.161958.28553@csus.edu>
Organization: Leapers For a Better Yesterday

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Tim Lynch's Imaginary Friend) writes:
>>Teaching children not to talk back is not dysfunctional.  Turning a kid
>>out so you don't have to deal with the problem, then disinheriting him
>>when your first brilliant solution flubbed, is.
>
>Well, excuse us if we don't have any patience for the Bart Simpson's of
>this world. 

OK, you're excused. :)

>But what do you do when normal punishments and talking just
>don't work with someone until you finally have to threaten some serious and
>permanent action? 

Then the kid needs help.  I'm not going to pretend I have a ready solution;
I'm not a father and don't have the experience I really would need to give
you a pat answer.  I just know that turning him out smacks far too much to
me of sweeping the problem under the rug, and isn't likely to get the kid
the help he needs.

>Then what do you do when your kid "puts you in your
>place" as they're leaving on their own volition?

If he's leaving for good, why would I need to do anything?

>>Steve, I'm not blaming you for your parents' mistakes.  I'm not even blaming
>>you for wanting to believe your family is typical.  I'm merely pointing out
>>that it's typical of no other family I've ever seen, including mine.
>
>Families that haven't read Dr. Benjamin Spock's "spare the rod, spoil the
>child" ideology aren't typical. So what's the difference?

I'm not sure what you're asking here.  Could you elaborate a bit, please?

-- 
"Me and you, a two man crew, 
 side by side we are united,
 we will never be divided...."

                                                  Au revoir, mon cherie.
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 14 Aug 1992 15:33:28 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <1992Aug13.233007.5823@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> In article <l8lqguINNrs2@spim.mips.com> 
|> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
|> 
|> > But those who are "pro-life" believe that their position is a mandate from 
|> > God to go out and save the heathens, not to mention the children.  
|> 
|> Your statement is a gross mischaracterization of those people who  
|> call themselves pro-life.  Many religious people do offer reasoned 
|> arguments about abortion which are not based upon the existence of
|> God.  In addition, there are many non-religious people who oppose  
|> abortion. 
|> 
You have missed the point again.  I am sure there are a few rational
arguments against having an abortion.  I am still looking for rational
arguments against choice.  In any case I will bite.  Please help me
identify non-religious people who are against a woman's choice to
decide for herself about her own abortion needs.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: repost
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:55:07 GMT

In article <nyikos.714165100@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

}                                                                  I still
}say that a strong selling point was that 
}the overwhelming majority of illegal abortions were very safe.  
}In fact they were safer than all too many abortions today, since
}abortionists have much less to fear from a botched abortion today.

My recollection is quite a bit different.  I have no idea if there are
statistics concerning the relative safety of abortions and the legal
status of abortion, nor do I have the foggiest where one would begin
looking for such.  However I am not sure I understand your point.
Are you claiming abortion should be illegal because illegal abortions
would be safer than legal ones?  I'll admit, I haven't heard that one
before...

--
       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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,woc.women