HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:35:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.134731.522@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

> The issue is control,  

The issue is killing.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32086 alt.flame:12131
From: levin@bbn.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Date: 17 Aug 1992 17:16:56 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
|In article <l8lb54INNqbs@news.bbn.com> levin@bbn.com writes:
|>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
|>|In article <l8iuokINN2e1@news.bbn.com> levin@bbn.com writes:
|>|>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
|>|>|In case Pat Roby didn't notice, the point was, no, there was no way I
|>|>|could have had any form of a bad childhood at home. 
|>|>
|>|>But please don't ask him about his hatching.
|>|I take it you didn't know I'm from the human species? 
|>
|>Yet to be proven.
|Proven. 

Asserted.  (And I've known parrots who could do a better job.)
Certainly NOT proven.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.elections
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is "abortion on demand" (was Re: ACLU's "Campaign
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:45:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.224742.2420@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Look, provide a *SOURCE* for your claims.  This is getting very tiresome. 
>Your repeated assertions are not very convincing.  

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!

Does this remind anyone besides me of pots and kettles?

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

An optimist believes that this is the best of all possible worlds;
a pessimist fears that this is the case.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Dirigible Boy Logic (was Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all thing) )apparently
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 23:51:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.184344.26798@u.washington.edu> darkstar@u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann) writes:

				Get lost, Humphrey. 

===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
	        With the little girl's consent, of course. 
		 Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this? 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:54:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.163353.6443@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <l8hms5INN4n9@girtab.usc.edu> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
> 
> >	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
> > ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
> > tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
> > dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
> > plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
> > platforms.
> 
> Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports exceptions for rape
> and incest, and for the life of the mother.   

And for members of his own family.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Why do they call themselves "pro-life"?
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:05:55 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  <1992Aug21.172246.17571@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> Let me ask you this question:  do you support the Democratic platform
> of unrestricted abortion on demand throughout the term of pregnancy,
> and government funding of abortion?

This is a lie.  The Democratic platform supports RvW, which allows for
restrictions.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: What is Sex to God?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 17:28:54 GMT

<1992Aug14.134746.29912@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.):
>  After some effort and confusion, I've finally found the Bible verses Gordon
>was talking about where Jesus commands his disciples to hate their parents.

Yes, I apologize for the confusion.  I was referencing Matthew when I
meant Luke.

>Luke 14:26 "If any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and 
>            wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own 
>	    life also, he cannot be my disciple.
>
>Luke 14:27 "And whosoever does not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot
>	   be my disciple."
>
> And now the verse I consider crucial to figuring out what this means:
>
>Luke 14:28 "For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down
>	    first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish
>	    it?
>
> Luke 14:29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to
>	    finish it, all that beholden it begin to mock him,
>
> Luke 14:30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish."
>
> 14:31-32 give a similar example of a king wanting to make war with not enough
> soldiers.  Finally:
>
> Luke 14:33 "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all he 
>	     hath, he cannot be my disciple."
>
>  I read it thusly:  One could not become a disciple without first being
>prepared to give up all that he had, "counting the cost."  It is not a
>simple command to "hate your parents." It was a very honest observation
>that following him was not going to be any kind of cakewalk.

In your opinion, with your liberal interpretation.  Not only does he
explicitely tell you to hate your family, but he also commands that you
give up all that you own.  Note that he didn't qualify that statement by
saying "give up the things that you like better than me".  He said "ALL".

If you don't hate your family, and you continue to own possesions YOU
CANNOT FOLLOW CHRIST, by his own words.  Many Christians twist his words
so that they can get away with owning things.  Tsk, tsk.


Gordon
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Just Plain LIES!! (was Re: The facts about Roe, Doe, and Colautti)
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:36:03 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>> I'm still waiting for someone to explain what kind of idiot repeatedly
>> fabricates evidence, 

> This statement is not correct.

Yes it is.

>> doctors quotes, 

> This statement is not correct.

Yes it is.

>> and changes context 

> This statement is not correct.

Yes it is.

> Character assasination won't work Ms. Garvin, much as you'd like it
> to work.

You're absolutely right.  You'd have to have character in order for
character assasination to work.

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:13:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.121744.5285@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

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

>> I didn't place the third trimester at 21 weeks. The implication in 
>> this thread is that the third trimester corresponds to the period 
>> when the fetus is viable, which isn't always true.  Some pro-aborts
>> place the third trimester at either 24 or 28 weeks, but viability 
>> can occur before then. 
 
>>> Could there be an attempt there to, dare I say it, muddy the waters?
>>> Misrepresent?

>> By certain pro-aborts?  You bet.

> 21 weeks is not at all a standard definition of thrid trimester.

Can't you read?  Look here:

>> I didn't place the third trimester at 21 weeks. 

[.. attempt at character assassination deleted ..]


Doug Holtsinger
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: TechnoTrivia Time...
Date: 18 Aug 92 10:57:46 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] 
] Killing an innocent child can never be done in a humane fashion. 


Never Seen what an FAE can do.....


ciao
drieux


ps: for extra credit, name the other non_nuclear MegaTonne system...




-- 
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: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: There's every reason to vote for Bush
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:45:20 GMT

Here is yet another follow-up that got distributed locally because I never
got a distribution prompt and it defaulted to local.

But there's a difference.  This one I also sent via "r" to Mr. Mezias and
he responded with a message putting `donation' in quotes.  I responded 
saying that I was glad that he was now doing this and told him that the
central question was whether the drawbacks of this `donation' outweighed
the drawbacks of aborting the pregnancy.  I got back a response savaging
me from this man who does not know me from Adam, calling me a misogynist
and other things of that sort.  [I don't suppose he's ever seen my
COERCED ABORTION post of last month.]  Interesting object lesson in
how flamewars get started. 


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

>In <28582@option.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>>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

>Which tissue and organs does a pregnant woman donate to her offspring?
>Hell, she does not even donate blood corpuscles.  Plasma, yes.
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 14 Aug 1992 08:58:29 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <BsxwsF.1Hv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>In article <ohgc6so@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>>Keep spelling it out for us.  How would you resolve the various
>>conflicts of rights which can result in a pregnancy?  Does this
>>belief of yours mean that:
>>
>>  - The fetus takes precedence over the woman's financial needs?
>>    (no abortion in cases where the woman can't afford to support
>>     a child, would lose job, etc.)
>
>Absolutely.  Financial needs are subservient to the right to life.
>I could go into a long discourse on this but I doubt that it is
>necessary given the intellectual level of those involved in the
>discussion.

Tim, I think you'd better.  It's obvious that two of us at least find your
arguments to be lacking, so perhaps you shouldn't assume things are as
'clear' as you think.

For example, you claim that financial needs are subservient to the right
to life.  (1) a "right to life" has not been established.  (2) even if a
right to life is established, it remains a truism in our society that you
cannot take financial resources from person A and give them to person B
EVEN IF person B will die without those resources.  Person B's 'right to
life' does not override person A's right to property.  This would seem to
directly refute your statement that financial needs are subservient to 
the purported 'right to life'.

(other examples deleted.)

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: More yelping from Clefty (was Re: More Bleating From the Borg
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 16:35:23 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


sc>In article <1992Aug19.233832.7895@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
L>In article <lefty-190892091251@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:

L>You, on the other hand, seem to feel that you've accomplished something by
L>running away at high speed while yelling back over your shoulder, "I'm
L>victorious, dammit!"

sc>BZZZZTTT !!! 

sc>I _never_ run from conflicts on this newsgroup or anywhere else. 

Care to share the contents of your killfile with us Inturdgent?
I guess you see a difference between running from conflicts and 
closing your eyes and saying you don't see them.  I would disagree
with you, but of course you will never know that since I am one
of those you are scared to debate and therefore you have my account
in your killfile.

Dan King
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Compassion (was: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because: )
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:45:54 GMT

From article <hzay_hf@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
> tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
> 
>>There is never no other choice but to get an abortion.
> 
> True.  In some situations, the woman can choose to die instead.


An admirable choice for the woman brave enough to risk it.  I had a
great-aunt whom the doctors BEGGED to stop having children because they
were sure that each next one would kill her.   She had 4, and when her
doctor asked her "Why, why, why?", her answer was, "I can't think of a
more beautiful way to go."

She did die young, but not in childbirth.


Suzanne Forgach
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A comment on RvW
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:03:08 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Aug12.171633.8055@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <l8ifgaINNgmg@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
>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?

>Doug Holtsinger

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Bye Bye for awhile
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:55:44 GMT

As much as I do not want to, I can no longer avoid a need to
unsubscribe from talk.abortion.  With classes starting again
in about a week and a thesis behind schedule, I need back those
extra minutes I've been spending here.

If participants here have comments they wish me to see, I suggest
email.

I will miss my time here, and I hope to get back as soon as I can.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
From: u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au (Richard Barry Ling)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: >>>>Chaney talks to his (other) self
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:12:27 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia


>===============================================================================
>Question: If you don't have truck bombs and thousands of fanatics to
>          sacrifice their lives and drive them, how do you scare a
>          nation into giving in to your demands?
>
>Answer:   Buy coat hangers and encourage women to kill themselves
>          with them and call yourself "pro-choice".
>===============================================================================

Well Stevey, you're doing great with parts one and two so far, but you're
still calling yourself "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.

Urkk... 80-column .sig club

________________________________
Richard.  u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31952 alt.birthright:405
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting)
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 16 Aug 92 16:07:57 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Aug16.003758.17259@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>And if I'd have reported Dan Bredy, it would have been mentioned so by
>the letter that YOU got from Kodak. I believe that perhaps they saw it
>themselves and that Dan Bredy is lying: no one reported it.

Did anyone save the letter from Kodak?

I don't remember Dennis as being on the list of people who
received this letter, and I think that such an inclusion
would have stood out.  (Dennis was certainly not among
the people who were upset by Kodak's actions, after all.)


Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Clearing Up a Technical Point
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:14:11 GMT

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

] In article <1992Aug11.104016.8268@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
] 
] }Tell me, though: do you think having sex is more like driving a car, or
] }pressing a red button? 
] 
] I don't really know, I'll have to get back to you on that one.  
] 
] I would have thought that any vague link between sex and the military
] would have come from wetware.  I wonder if the ProblemOlderWoman ever
] has any doubts as to exactly why the earth moved...


1. There is NO connection between the Military and 'sex',
ask any sailor on liberty call.....

2. In California, when we worry about the 'earth moving'
it is a matter of geology and NOT biology.

3. I hate to depress everyone who was hoping for the
traditional LesbianDrivenAssumption that the 'red button'
analogy would be an obvious referent to KlitoralKompliKations.

BUT: a Nuclear weapons launch requires a TWO KEY SYSTEM.

WOMEN DO NOT COME WITH TWO KEYS....

Nor Do they come with an Owners Manual!!!

Nor Do they Come with ManPages!!!!!

This is why they are Not MEN!!!!

Men Are Male! Men Are Masculine! 

Men Are ManPages!!!! With BigSwapSpaces!!!!


ciao
drieux

ps: I hope that clears up this subject....



-- 
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,alt.birthright
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:31:23 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug13.121233.3790@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>,
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes of Stephen Dennis
Hall-Chaney:
> 
> Dan King is right.  You are a twelve year old.

On behalf of my ten year old niece, who displays far greater sense and
maturity than Mr. Chaney-Hall ever has, I take umbrage at your remark,
Dean.

Whatever it is that Dennis is, it has nothing to do with his age.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: repost
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:42:53 GMT

<1992Aug8.165958.21263@midway.uchicago.edu> (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>> Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                  - E. Elizabeth Bartley

<1992Aug18.122206.650@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> I haven't seen an explicitly Anti-Roe statement above.  "Life or health"
> is a Roe formula.

RvW can be viewed in two ways, as policy and as process.  As policy,
it established a trimester framework of rights and interests in which
to create abortion policy.  As you have noted, Elizabeth agrees with 
the policy framework of RvW ( Roughly anyway.  I'll let Elizabeth deal 
with the details of her stance herself. )

As process, RvW asserted that the Supreme Court has the authority
to author such a framework and impose it on all the states of the
Union.  It is this notion which Elizabeth rejects.  The Court's purpose
is not to enact its favored policy for the states.

I'm sure Elizabeth would be happy if the Illinois legislature passed the 
provisions of RvW into state law.  In fact, I think she has even voiced
support for the FOCA, which attempts to do something similar on a 
federal level.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|