HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Fodder for DOD's .sig (Was: Pro-Choice Challenge)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 05:35:18 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  <1992Aug31.233446.4618@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>  smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.224010.29434@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com
> writes:
>
> [King Danny and Galen's comments appreciated and deleted]
>
> >You people are making fun of Doug for being an idiot, but I think it's
> >incredibly offensive how he's making fun of the Jewish religion.  If
> >someone put down Catholics in the same way Doug is putting down Jews,
> >he would be the first one screaming about it.
>
>
> Since DOD edited my comments for his .sig, maybe you didn't see
> the question that I've asked him repeatedly.  I keep asking
> him what it is about Judaism that bothers him, and he keeps
> deleting the question and not answering it.  This is not the
> only instance of Holtsinger implying that there is something
> wrong with Judaism and its beliefs.  I think that he's a bigot.

I saw the question, and I saw the lack of response; what I didn't see
was anyone pointing out how offensive it was.

> The comments he makes about the quotes are offensive.

Well, if you agree that he's offensive, I'll agree that he's a bigot.  :-)

I just thought that his comments were extremely hypocritical in light
of other things he's said, such as:
>If you said "not all homosexuals are promiscuous" or
>"not all Jews are money-grubbers" then I think people would be outraged
>by your remarks.  I find your remarks very offensive.

So I wanted to point out that his comments ridiculing the religious
beliefs of Jews were extremely offensive.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:03:52 GMT

In article <24187@oasys.dt.navy.mil> 
bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

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

>> Roe v. Wade created a constitutional right to "terminate a pregnancy"
>> and it created a constitutional right to kill certain members of the
>> human species.

> False, this is a consequence of the above, similar to preventing someone
> from walking off with your valuables while in your house by shooting
> them. This action is also legal, and it involves the right to kill certain
> members of the human species. 

There is no constitutional right to kill a burglar.  In some states,
it's not legal to kill a burglar, even if they're walking off with
your valuables.  

Roe v. Wade created a constitutional right to kill certain members 
of the human species. 

>Ron


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: re: Sex Sacrifice, and the USA
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:34:37 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Sep2.143250.2206@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

> In article <1992Sep1.164017.18711@menudo.uh.edu>, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> > In <1992Sep1.142942.10219@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov writes:
> > 
> >>And the only 100% reliable way to ensure this is with the option of abortion.
> >>Sure there are precautions that she can take to reduce the chance of 
> >>pregnancy, but not a single one of them, including abstinence, is 100%
> >>reliable.                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>Dan King
> > 
> >   Ahhhhh, Dan?  Could you maybe elaborate on this?  If abstinence = no inter-
> > course, and there's no technological or religious miracles involved, how is
> > this possible?  I mean, if the sperm and the egg don't get together...how
> > do they get together?
> 
> Consider this:  Horny Harry and Hot Henrietta don't want to conceive.
> Dr. Everythingbealright says "Not a problem!  Just abstain from
> intercourse!"
> 
> How long will abstainence work for Horny Harry and Hot Henrietta?
> Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca

  No need to be snippy.  Aside from using force, which a number of posters have
correctly pointed out, a person who *chooses* not to engage in intercourse is
100% safe from getting or causing pregnancy, barring science or acts of God.

  I was NOT preaching the wonders of abstinence (I have remarked on the fool-
ishness of same many times), I was just wondering what Dan was talking about.
I have not seen Dan's reply, though several others have provided reasonable
explanations with varying degrees of politeness.

  Besides, it IS possible to get your rocks off and not have vaginal inter-
course.  Oral sex, for example.

  STD's are another story...

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: PR on Family Values
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 21:29:03 GMT

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:

] kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
] # While travelling across Kansas recently, I came across a radio station
] # (107.7fm) which was doing "Focus On The Family".  Their definition of
] # "Traditional Family Values" is, and I quote...
] # 
] # "Hetrosexual Men And Women Getting Married And Having Children".
] 
] Indeed. This is generally what Pat Robertson tried to say on Larry
] King last night, 

Does this mean:

1. One Hetro Man and One Hetro Woman getting Married and having children.
{ Repeat while there exists an x element of the set of
Heterosexual men, and a y element of the set of heterosexual women. }

2. That Men have the right to replicate with any woman 
irregardless of their Sexuality...

3. Pat is coming out in support for our God Given rights to
concubines, and none of this ShillyShallySeXularHumanistMonogamyBunk.

ciao
drieux



-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 04:25:08 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  <1992Sep1.060305.4798@Cadence.COM>  phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.210023.11560@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
> >From article by bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman):
> >>
> >>    The figure on third trimester abortions is that they represent
> >> less than one in one thousand abortions performed in America.
> >
> >1/1000 * (1.5 million) = 1500 babies per year = 4 viable babies per day,

Note:  "less than".  The actual number is about 100 per year after the 24th
week.  Which is .01%, or one in ten thousand.

> Does anyone have any figures as to how many third-tris that are aborted
> really ARE viable?

One study found that of 78 reported abortions past 24 weeks of
pregnancy, 75 were classified incorrectly and were actually in utero
fetal deaths or occurred at earlier gestation, and two of the three
correctly classified abortions were for anencephaly.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Children and fathers (Re: Observations)
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:16:58 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <24559@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>tes:
>>In talk.abortion, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

>>It is not your child until it is born.

>That's your belief.  It is also pretty much upheld by law.  But it does
>not imply that there is a consensus.  To be cynical, it is not even the
>father's child after it is born, given the inequities in custody decisions.

In reality, a child does not *belong* to any one particular person.
The state will take custody (supposedly) in cases of abuse, so in legal
terms it appears that you only have custody on good faith. In reality,
however, it appears that the health services are failing miserably as
more and more accounts emerge about children being sent back into abusive
households for more pain. As for the inequities in custody decisions,
I'll voice my own opinion here:

It seems to me that the inequitible dealings in custody have much historical
precedent, from the old days when men worked long hours in the fields,
and women stayed home to take care of the children and the housework.
Even into the 1950's and 1960's, this was a widely held custom and belief,
and therefore many believed that men could not/did not know how to take
care of children, and by default custody was always given to the woman.
It is also a widely held belief that women are much more closely involved
with their children than men, and it appears to be true in many cases,
although there are always exceptions. This close bond is another reason
why custody appears to automatically go to women. Lately,this pattern
appear to be changing, as the male-chauvinistic judges from two eons
ago are slowly giving up their seats, and younger judges take over.
Also, popular opinion appears to be changing about any defined role
for women, as more enter the work force, and the begin to become into
equitable situations with men. Now, women are gone as often as men (in
many cases) from the home, and the thought is shifting to "do women
really have any more bonds with their children than men" and can they
really take any better care of them than men? Where it gies from here,
who knows.

>Statistics or references, please?  After all, you said:

I did, and those were posted about 2 months ago. Maybe I archived them,
maybe they're just in storage. I'll try to find them.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:54:22 GMT

From article <94392@bu.edu>, by kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star):
> Sorry for the delay...I just got back from vacation...
> 
> In article <1992Aug13.202616.19679@noao.edu>
> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>>I hate to break it to you Brian, but [...] I strongly suspect your
>>little niece was not embracing homosexualism as much as she was simply
>>verbalizing that she could tell that they were both men.
> 
> Suzanne, I was there. She was clearly associating the hand-holding that
> her parents and the two men were engaging in...
> 
> Disdain of homosexuality is learned. Are you going to teach your daughter
> to frown upon two women or two men holding hands in public?


Why the hell would I?   I never have myself.

Like I said, I think y'all are just paranoid.   You see hatred even where
there isn't any.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:08:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.012242.7508@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.200356.9659@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug15.142040.13003@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> 
>>bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>>
>>> The polls show that the majority of Republicans favor choice.  
>>
>>Do you have a source for this claim, or is this just more of your bullshit?
>
>I've heard the same claim on NPR news.  What's more, I believe it.  Although
>the poll results depend on how the question is asked, it is pretty clear that
>the majority of Americans, as well as the majority of Republicans, are
>pro-choice when it comes to first-trimester abortions.

You believe it. 

Yeah, right. 

That's why more than half of the delegates to the convention were
clearly pro-life, and the pro-aborts didn't stand a snowball's chance
in HELL of getting even the 6 states needed to force the issue to a
debate on the floor. 

That's why pro-abortion Republicans got their tails kicked in
Louisiana, Kansas, and right here in CA, Tom Campbell lost in the most
liberal state in the Union. No pro-abortion Republican is supposed to
lose an election in CA, but Campbell did. 

Pro-abortion Republicans can't take anything NEAR the controlling
reigns of the Republican party. The pro-lifers dominate the leadership
so strongly that the pro-aborts got torn to shreds in ALL the ballot
battles at the Convention, AND if you're looking to the commonfolk
activists, there is a Republican organization that outnumber's the
pro-choice side, 225,000 to 4,000. 

>By the way, Dougie, please don't ask me to substantiate this claim because I
>won't.  You wouldn't believe me if I did, so why waste the effort?

You take a look at those 225,000 Republican activists and tell their
4,000 pro-choice moderates that the moderates are the majority. 

>-Pete Zakel
> (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)
>
>"Tom Hayden is the kind of politician who gives opportunism a bad
>name."

Tom Hayden LOST in Kansas. To a Pro-Life Democrat, Joan Finney (now
Governor of Kansas). 
 
===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation 
Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   And a Democrat to Boot | 
                           <<<=== Pro-Life ===>>> 
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: 4-6-8-10, ARE FFL's leaders men?
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:02:50 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

> R. Graham

>The deeper question is, why does it seem all the pro-life voices within 
>this newsgroup are men?  (Ms. Forgach notwithstanding.)  The answers are
>simple:

>(1) Most Usenet subscribers are computer scientists and/or engineers.
>    For better or for worse, these are men.  For the time being.
>(2) The overwhelming majority of pro-choice voices here are also men.
>    The reason for this is also (1).

Not "overwhelming" by a long shot.  Let's see ... myself, Susan Garvin,
Cathi Cook, Adrienne Regard, Jennifer Brown, and that's onnly the ones
I can name off the top of my head.  We make up a *significant* percentage
of the pro-choice posters around here.

>The bottom line is, you can't use the population of this newsgroup as
>a serious scientific study of anything.  You can't even really use it
>as the basis of a good flame.

>If anyone doubts that not only the leadership, but also the *membership*,
>of Feminists for Life is overwhelmingly composed of women, send e-mail and
>I'll send you enough names to set you straight in a hurry.  
               ^^^^^^ ^^^^^
*Enough* names won't cut it, buddy.  In order to prove that "the *membership*
of Feminists for Life is overwhelmingly composed of women," you'd have to
send us your ENTIRE membership list.  If you only send us "enough names,"
you could easily select the, say, 10% of the group that are women, carefully
neglecting to mention that 9 times that number are men, and claim that because
that 10% represents say, 100 names, that 100 women means FFL is "overwhelmingly
composed of women," when it may or may nnot be.

You would also have to explainn what criteria a personn must meet in order to
become a member.  There must be some action takenn on the part of the member
inn order to become one - just being on your mailing list does not qualify a
person as a member.

>If anyone doubts
>that the membership of Feminists for Life is mostly non-stay-at-home mothers,
>I can set you straight on that issue as well.

And how would you purport to do that? 

>So there are no female members of FFL speaking up in this newsgroup.  If
>that situation continues (which it may not), you can draw no conclusions
>whatsoever about FFL as a result.  Cheers.

And we cann draw no connclusions from your unsupported claims about the FFL
either.
-- 
Read My Lips: No Bush In '92!

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34336 alt.abortion.inequity:3382
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Tuesday, 1 Sep 1992 14:22:59 EDT
From: <IO10023@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Distribution: usa
 <1992Aug20.141415.3923@spdc.ti.com>
 <1992Aug21.001742.3923@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
 <1992Aug25.171409.12451@advtech.uswest.com>


qquit
qquit
1
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Date: 27 Aug 92 12:44:52 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <24090@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

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

#> There isn't one now. There is a contitutional right to not be pregnant
#> if a woman so desires. The removal of the z/e/f generally entails the
#> death of same, but such is life.

>Roe v. Wade created a constitutional right to "terminate a pregnancy"

Here, you've said it yourself. Look at what you said.

>and it created a constitutional right to kill certain members of the
>human species.

False, this is a consequence of the above, similar to preventing someone
from walking off with your valuables while in your house by shooting
them. This action is also legal, and it involves the right to kill certain
members of the human species. Note that there has to be a precedent
in each case, the first requires that there be a member of the species
inside another memeber, the second is that a memebr of the species must
be inside the abode of another, without permission. Neither gives unilateral
rights to kill members of the species.

>A viable fetus can often be removed alive.  But it's generally
>faster and cheaper to kill a viable fetus during an abortion,
>rather than to remove the fetus alive.

Doug, some facts. A fetus, once removed, will die in a very short time
in 90+% of the cases of abortions. Would you prolong this, at great
cost to the mother and the public, as you seem to be advocating that
all be done to continue the life of the fetus? After all, the mother
can refuse to sign for responsibility to provide care for said fetus,
which means your money, as well as ours, will have to go to provide
for this service. I prefer that mine go to reducing the debt, not a
senseless endeavor such as you are advocating.

>No state may enact legislation which requires a physician
>to remove a viable fetus alive, because it would be unconstitutional
>under Roe.  Therefore Roe created a constitutional right to kill
>certain members of the human species.

Sensible, since it would only place barriers in place against abortion,
and would provide nothing else. Your second sentence is false, as shown
above. Think you can actually get some facts straight in the future,
or at least keep from making the same mis-statements? It would make
these posts much shorter.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.rape
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Nyikos Goes Under (WAS Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:59:18 GMT

In <f2dng-=.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
>>I'm going to have to post some of the relevant parts of COERCED
>>ABORTION again.  One right that was lost was the right to have
>>an abortionist prosecuted for felony sexual battery if he or she
>> goes on with an abortion after a woman changes
>>her mind and wants out.

>What ARE you going on about?  How many women decide at the last moment
>that they have changed their mind and are forcibly held to the table
>while the doctor performs the abortion?

That is something only the abortionists know, and they aren't about 
to tell you or me or any of the "million women" you talk about below.

Food for thought: it is generally estimated that only one out of ten
rapes is reported.  And that's with laws that make rape a felony with
up to 30 years imprisonment in force.  How much smaller the percentage
of forced abortions, when almost no one takes seriously the idea that it
should also be a crime with similar penalties?

>And (more importantly), how the hell does this justify forcing a million
>women to give birth each year?

I never advocated that.  You obviously haven't been following my posts
too closely.  I would allow abortion for any reason up to five weeks after
fertilization.  Beyond the seventh week, I would allow it for very
carefully circumscribed reasons.  [This language sounds pretentious, I
know; what I really mean is, those are the kinds of laws I would support.]

>>The outrage that was committed on my friend would be a felony
>>punishable by thirty (30) years in jail were it not for the 
>>common understanding, in the wake of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton,
>>that abortion is a "medical" act.

>Forget to leave out the details?  Or are you making up some
>emotional propaganda to further your cause?

Sorry, I can't figure out what you are saying here.
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
Date: 23 Aug 92 20:32:11 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

Suzanne,
     YOu've been posting a lot of information about how your daughter
would never get an abortion because she'd never get pregnant. What if
(using Larry's postulates) in a world of illegal abortion, your
daughter was raped, made pregnant, and secretly had an abortion.
     Would you report her to the police?

                                              MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame