HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:09:34 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  <1992Aug17.161439.28069@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
> I'd be more worried about privacy taking a trip through the floor at
> election time after that, as Americans elect politicians who would be more
> than glad to knock off privacy. My problem is, in whacking away abortion
> and underaged sex, they might damn all logic and cut out not only the bad
> privacy decisions, but the good ones, too.

WHat do you classify as "good ones"?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: More lies 
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:52:02 GMT

In article <28732@option.GBA.NYU.EDU> 
smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

> DOD is pursuing the strategy of repeating a lie more frequently as it
> is challenged.  

Pro-aborts are pursuing the strategy of character assassination. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Other Flip-Floppers on abortion
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:47:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.222436.21732@sequent.com> bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) writes:
>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 many times must people be told?
>
>    PRO-CHOICE IS _NOT_ THE SAME AS PRO-ABORTION

This is true.  But since the Democratic platform calls for
public funding of abortions in Medicare, isn't it fair to call
that a pro-abortion stance, since they are using tax dollars
to support that act? 

>Why is it that if someone says that they are "opposed to abortion" that
>they are labelled ANTI-CHOICE.

Some extremists like to wage arguments through labels.
We might as well let the activists have their way and call them
what they want (respectively): pro-life, pro-choice.
But it is *really* pro-abortion-restrictions vs. pro-abortion-rights.

"Pro-choice" and "Anti-choice" are antiseptic and meaningless terms.
Is Bill Clinton "anti-choice" because he doesn't support the
school choice plan that Bush proposed, or the housing voucher plans
pushed by Kemp? Is his anti-second amendment stance "anti-choice"?

Same with "pro-life" I guess.  Can Bush really be pro-life if he supports
the death penalty for Federal crimes?

>I also support "parental notification".
>This is not the same as "parental
>consent".
.....
>I support your right to be pro-life, as long as you support my right
>to be pro-choice.

Hmmm. Some extremists on the "pro-choice" side would claim your
stance is too restrictive.
---
Pat
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abstinence is the only answer
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:21:48 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
|dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|# Your post was a shameful, transparent attempt to slander Mr. Guerrero.

|Did you really mean to write `libel' instead of `slander?'
|Ooooh, goody.  Yet Another Libel Litigation Happy Pro-Lifer!
|Better start a file for me now.

You know, it's Dougisms like this one which make me begin 
to wonder if the people who say he's really Rasmussen aren't 
right after all.  Rasmussen after he managed to pass freshman 
comp, mind you, but Rasmussen nonetheless.

Or maybe it's just an instance of parallel evolution.
There's a niche in t.a, begging to be filled with a selectively
deaf monomaniac, and some libel-happy pro-life ranter will 
always evolve to fill it.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com    C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"He must be an oddity, I think," said she.  "I cannot make him out.  
There is something very pompous in his style.  Can he be a sensible 
man, sir?"  --Pride & Prejudice.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:39:34 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >the hallchaney thing posting as
-> >chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes to
-> >mark kaufman:
-> >-> You are the shame of the pro-choice contingent
-> >-> on this newsgroup.
-> >
-> >how do you know? name one person who supports
-> >choice who has so stated.
-> 
-> E. Elizabeth Bartley. 

ms. bartley supports legislation to restrict abortion;
anti-choice legislation so to speak. as i said, name
one person who supports choice who has so stated.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 19:29:35 GMT


This was ACCIDENTALLY posted here.  It certainly does not belong.
But if it annoyed Chaney, it was not a complete error.  To all of
the HUMANS here, sorry about the error.  Sorry about the error...
Hmm.  Isn't that what Steve Chaney's mother should have said?
-- 
"The tree of liberty must occasionally be nourished by the blood
of tyrants and of patriots."                    Thomas Jefferson
"Hello? Information?  Would you please give me the home phone of
Pat Buchanan?...Yes.  His address as well, thank you very much."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 06:43:21 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<adams.713803773@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt):
>>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>> #
>>> # WHY DO YOU THINK TEENAGE GIRLS --GET-- PREGNANT, GORDON??!!
>>> # 
>>> # It's not even half as much their sex drives as it is their
>>> # desperate, mistaken, attempts to find love in a crazy, misguided world!!
...
>>> Finally, world peace is at hand....
>
>>Motherly love is the answer.
>
>Motherly love from a 15-year old who's life has been destroyed?  Who likely 
>will be a single mom?  Who likely won't finish high school?  Who likely will 
>end up on welfare?

Heck, I just read in the paper where a mother tried to kill her four
children by suffocation.  I guess if all the mothers killed their children
we *would* eventually have world peace.  So I guess Suzanne is correct, in
her own twisted way.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
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.
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Abortion polls without gender gap?
Date: 18 Aug 92 02:10:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <16pj8aINNrvg@agate.berkeley.edu> wft@soda.Berkeley.EDU
(William F. Tell) writes: 

>In article <n1cypnr@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>I think a friend of mine put it best when she noted that people
>>who oppose abortion are generally those who are unlikely ever to
>>need one.
>
>Actually, I have seen the various polls and there is no significant
>gender gap on abortion.  The majority of both sexes are pro-choice,
>but opposed to blanket abortion on demand, and believe that the
>Pennsylvania laws upheld by the Supreme Court are reasonable.

Can the claim that there is no gender gap on these issues be verified
with a cite by anyone?  My recollection of the same polls is that
while these statements about majorities are true, subject to the usual
disclaimers about how one states questions, that a significant gender
gap persisted.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:03:39 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug20.202812.12068@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>  
> What do people think of the idea?

It couldn't work (imo)...  Abortion is quite a personal subject and will
undoubtedly cause emotions to erupt.  Sure, plenty of times someone
will bring up an interesting point, but being it is on the topic of
abortion, someone else will usually have a disagreement which is
based upon their own very personal beliefs.  You have to put up with
rage and fury if you want to hear people talk about abortion.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 17 Aug 92 13:50:36 CDT


In article <1992Aug16.230241.3085@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
> In article <FOX.92Aug15221336@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
> ]I'm just saying that it is not murder to withold assistance to
> ]another human being.  This is still true if the human being is
> ]a fetus.  If that human being is a fetus in the first two
> ]trimesters it will not survive without the assistance of the
> ]mother.  If that assistance is witheld the fetal human being
> ]will die, but no murder will have been committed.  If that is
> ]not an argument based on the appropriate assumptions I guess
> ]we should just drop it.
> 
> If a mother has a baby, sets it aside, and leaves it on its own,
> she is merely witholding assistance. She would also be convicted
> of murder when the child died of that neglect. It is indeed murder
> in some cases to withold assistance.

Do you think that a woman that has an abortion should face the same
criminal charges/punishment as a woman that abandoned her baby (resulting
in its death)?

-- 
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!)
From: keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Barry Goldwater
Date: 13 Aug 92 10:59:37 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

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!

someone should start using this as a .sig, really.



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A comment on RvW
Date: 14 Aug 1992 16:13:35 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Aug12.225222.19804@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <l8iv4cINNidr@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> 
>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

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

>>>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>>>> The concept that I am putting forth is that what we value and protect
>>>> (often useing the label "personhood") is sentient beings. 

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

>> Yes, what's your point?

>What kind of legislation would you support to protect sentient animals
>from being killed?  

First of all, I may have been using the wrong word here. Rather than
sentience, the correct word should be sapience. I think that most
animals are sentient, but not necessairly sapient.

As for legislation, if we were to discover another sapient species,
I think that we would have to develop joint legislation with them that
would create a society where both species could coexist.

>Doug Holtsinger

Eric
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: L. L. Bean allows anti-choice candidate to use company property
Date: 16 Aug 92 14:24:16 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <ceX6pNG00iUxM6Abkf@andrew.cmu.edu> ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Michael Loomis) writes: 
>smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>-> Linda Loraine Bean, a candidate for Congress from
>-> the First District in Maine, was allowed to use the
>-> premises of L. L. Bean, the boot stitching factory
>-> to be precise, to film a television commercial for
>-> her campaign.  She is adamantly anti-choice, as well
>-> as anti-gay rights legislation and anti-gun control.
>
>My understanding is that L. L. Bean did not permit the almost fascist
>women to run this ad, but I could have been misinformed.  This needs to
>be more throughly researched before any decides to boycott L. L. Bean.

(1) You have left out the part of my post in which I state that I
called the company myself.  (2) Nowhere do I state that they gave her
permission to run the according; why would she need their permission?
(3) What they did do, which they admitted to me on the phone, was what
I said they did: They permitted her to use the boot-stitching factory,
knowing that it was for a political commercial representing the
particular views that I outlined.  (4) When I called Bean, they hemmed
and hawed, saying that the commercial is no longer airing and stating
that she is a private citizen entitled to her views.  I find these
statements irrelevant: They did what is described in (3); hence I will
no longer buy their products.  I urge all pro-choice persons to do the
same.  

If you have a different view of an appropriate response to what they
did, then please state it.  However, I would appreciate it if you
would not repost my statements without including my own verification
of the information I posted.  I stand by this information as I posted
it; in fact, I supplied the 800 number for anyone to call who wanted
to verify it for themselves.

SJM
From: orr@perlis.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing})
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I Tend To Ignore Wes Orr Because.
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:39:37 GMT
Organization: Grand Valley State University, Allendale MI

It is obvious that you are biased in your assumptions.  Downgrading my 
writing skills does nothing to further your cause.  I suggest you learn
more honest and positive ways of attacking the message and not the
messenger.

Wes

-- 
Wes Orr, Dude
GVSU
orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu           I love Bugs Bunny!
--------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: Re: More stale, tiresome attempts at character assassination
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 20:39:54 GMT


   Holtsinger complains, "Your attempts at character assasination
illustrate that you're completely unable to address the substance
of my arguments."
   The problem, Dougie, is that your arguments have no substance.
You draw upon certain references, and then present them in a most
misleading manner.  You obscure the truth by using selected facts
to mislead.  This is the same as lying.  It actually IS lying.  I
have seen you do this numerous times.  You are a very corrupt and
dishonest person in your opposition to choice.  To assert this is
NOT character assasination.  It is journalism.  Whenever somebody
checks your premises, you are shown to be deliberately misleading
on the subject of abortion.  While I have accused you of being an 
idiot, I have done it in anger.  You are not stupid.  Rather, you
are corrupt.  And if you want to argue your position, and present
your reasons for it, there are any number of people that can take
it apart, as has been done time and again.  The problem is that a
lot of people are getting tired of your trying to assert the same
things that have been refuted so many times already.  Perhaps you
should check your premises.  It's not that I expect you will come
to like the idea of abortion.  I don't like the idea of abortion.
But maybe you will realize what a horrible invasion it is to make
a woman bear young against her will.  If you would simply attempt
to imagine what being pregnant must be like, and then imagine not
wanting to be, you might see how terrible having no way out would
be for any woman.  There is no analog for men to the threat of an
unwanted pregnancy, let alone the pregnancy itself.  So when your
self-righteous fervor gets flowing, just stop and think what your
opposition to choice really means.  Do you really like women?  Do
you really want to do this to women?
-- 
   "We're going to have the best educated American people in the
world."                              Dan Quayle - Sept. 21, 1988
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 04:04:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.232518.26589@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
# Don't be stupid.  Just to drive her to another pregnancy and another
# abortion in her unending search for love, aggravated by such an act?
# 
# WHY DO YOU THINK TEENAGE GIRLS --GET-- PREGNANT, GORDON??!!
# 
# It's not even half as much their sex drives as it is their
# desperate, mistaken, attempts to find love in a crazy, misguided world!!
# 
# And you know what??  If they'd let their pregnancies go to term, they'd
# have it.

This little gem was my favorite post of the last seven days.

Finally, world peace is at hand....

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

"I am fully prepared to anoint myself with the rancid fat of a feral
sow and run naked through town while the villagers throw pot-stickers
at me."
                                                     -- Michael Rigler
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: HeteroSexuality as a DeathKult
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:26:38 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <23257@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>>In talk.abortion, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> Infants and toddlers do not have a moral conscience, so therefore they
>>> are not human beings by your definition. Mental vegetables would not be
>>> human beings under your definition either, since they do not have "thoughts"

>> For the latter, you are 100% correct. They aren't. (IMHO of course)

>So mental vegetables should not possess the right to life?  Can they be
>killed arbitrarily?

Actually, just about. But only by those having responsibility over those
"vegetables" can do so. I have never seen anyone convicted of "pulling
the plug" on a vegetative state person, and, unless you have a flaming
pro-life jerk-off doctor, like the daughter of that couple did where
they had to fight in court for ten or so years to have the *doctor*
pull the plug, it's generally a quite decision between doctor and those
family members responsible.

>> For the former, you said it yourself, they're infants and toddlers,
>> not persons per se. Does this bother you? It doesn't me, obviously.

>Infants and toddlers should not possess the right to life?  At what
>age approximately should children become persons?

That varies, and depends on the child. There are adults who don't really
qualify for the person status either, it's not an age thing, but a develop-
mental stage that must be reached. That is for the person argument.

>If you're arguing that children should receive protection because they
>will eventually become "persons", then the same can be said of a
>developing child in the womb.

No. Children should receive protection, because it hurts no one to do
so. (To be completely logical and play Mr. Spock.) A fetus encroaches
on the rights of another, and to remove this encroachment unfortunately
causes the death of the fetus, in most cases. The additional consideration
invalidates your extension of the argument.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32801 alt.abortion.inequity:3202
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 21 Aug 92 11:38:53 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
@>In article <1992Aug20.174314.4087@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu
@>(Doug Holtsinger) writes:

@>Refraining from sexual intercourse does not mean refraining from sex,
@>since there's always oral sex, anal sex, and mutual masturbation, among
@>other forms of sex.  There's a wide variety of possibilities besides
@>the missionary position.  Please don't confuse "sexual intercourse"
@>with "sex".

> idiots

> If we were talking about other forms of sex and not intercourse we
> wouldn't have to worry about an abortion now would we?

Hee hee. This is rich. Notice the irony here, anyone?

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.