HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: MEET GEORGE TILLER, LATE-TERM ABORTIONIST Part Two
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Keywords: abortion, digoxin, laminaria, pro-death
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:41:28 GMT

In article <1095@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

> [lots of PHoney's bullshit deleted]

The "bullshit" that you have deleted is information quoted 
directly from an advertisement in the abortion clinic where 
Dr. Tiller works.  Still think it's "bullshit", Ms. Garvin? ;-) 

Here Ms. Garvin deletes the following key sentences, where
Mr. Nyikos talks about the fee schedule:

>> The cold light of reality begins with the fee schedule.  Sixteen to 22
>> weeks, $750; 22 to 26 weeks, $1800.  Beyond 26 weeks, $2200.  

Notice that Mr. Nyikos acknowledges that the information 
on the fee schedule was not obtained from Dr. Tiller: 

>> This
>> information is missing from the brochure, and I am relying for it on
>> _Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments_, by Randy Alcorn, Multnomah
>> Press, 1992.  Information current as of May 1991, courtesy of Ann Tilson
>> writing in _Kansans for Life_.

> Really - why bother with original sources when you can use
> pro-lie propaganda instead?  

Notice how Ms. Garvin deletes a few key sentences above 
to make it appear as though all of Mr. Nyikos' information
was obtained from pro-life sources.  In fact, much of the
information was obtained using Dr. Tiller's advertisements 
and using quotes of Dr. Tiller.

>Susan

Really Ms. Garvin, I had expected better from you.  Normally
you're pretty good at misrepresenting other peoples' posts.


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:20:53 GMT

In <BzEy8s.7x8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher J Burian) writes:

>ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis) writes:

>>Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 15-Dec-92 Pro-choicers must condone
>>i.. by Doug Holtsinger@csl36h.c 
>>> Clearly, pro-choicers who support unrestricted abortion-on-
>>> demand must argue that the child should not be considered
>>> as a person.  This position implies that newborn infants 
>>> are not persons, since there is no difference between a 
>>> late-term fetus and an infant, and hence these pro-choicers 
>>> must condone infanticide.

In another post along this thread, Steve Adams made a big deal about the 
"no difference", pointing out
that there is a big difference in location.  Only he went on to make
a bigger fool of himself than Doug did, by ignoring the fact that one
could induce early labor, or do a C-section, to evict this "unwanted
intruder" without killing it, once viability is past.

Mark Cochran, in a fascinating display of the Big Lie technique, told
me in an e-mail message which he did not mind being made public, that
this is the way pregnancies are ALWAYS terminated after the 26 week 
point, with a living neonate as the intended result--and after seeing my 
first GEORGE TILLER post, too! Some people's audacity still can take 
my breath away.

>>Like Mr. Holtsinger, I too see no particular reason to oppose a woman
>>who wishes to kill her own newly born child.  The surprising concept is
>>that there exists people who would forbid a woman who wishes to kill her
>>newly born child from doing so.  It seems merely another manifestation
>>of the cruelty in society that has lead to so much suffering.  We just
>>need to love each other more.

Much as I continue to disagree with Mr. Loomis on infanticide as well
as abortion, I will always applaud his willingness to face the issue
squarely.

>It is kind of funny how it's "okay" to yank a baby out of the womb piece
>by piece, yet it's "wrong" to let a newborn die a gentle death from
>hypothermia.

>The subject begs further reflection and dialogue.

>	Chris Burian

I also applaud Chris for the same reason, even though I do not know where
he stands on the issues.

Peter Nyikos
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Off to Costa Rica.  And only until Jan. 17!!!
Date: 28 Dec 92 02:39:38 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

I'm off again.  My wife, son, and I are off to CR en famille.
Romantic dinners with a 2.5 year old.  Long mornings sleeping in with
a toddler.  What romance!  

Bottom line: If you want my responses to anything, email me a copy.
Best wishes for the New Year to one and all.

SJM
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: more phoney disinformation?
Keywords: me and the coroner
Date: 31 Dec 92 18:39:53 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec31.174624.25195@crd.ge.com> keegan@crd.ge.com writes:
#sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#|>Becky Bell died because of people like PHoney.  Rosie Jimenez
#|>died because of people like PHoney.  Worldwide, tens of 
#|>thousands of women die each year because of people like
#|>PHoney.  All of his lies, all of his stupid flames, won't
#|>change this.  
#
#no, they won't. i wonder if people like PHoney ever
#think about women dying.

I think that try not to, in some cases.  (Others, I fear, delight
in the idea.)  People like PHoney who lie about Becky Bell's death
are obviously trying to pretend that women won't die because of
their attitudes.

I have to wonder why no such disinformation campaign was mounted
by the right-to-lie movement over Rosie Jimenez's death.  In
her case, the CDC ruled that she died of complications following
an unsafe, illegal abortion in 1979.  The partera who performed
the illegal abortion was prosecuted and found guilty.  Maybe
there was just too much evidence that time.  Also, I 
think it's due partly to the fact that she was a poor Latina woman
rather than an upper middle class blonde teenager, and therefore
easier for them to discount as not worthy of their attention.  
I think another reason is that they have more support for their
policy of government funding only for births.  Many people who
self-identify as pro-choice also argue against government funding
for abortion.  They, too, choose to ignore women like Ms. Jimenez.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Birth Positions...
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:41:55 GMT

From article by Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>:
>
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...
>AR> PS, yes, I also had a quite carring and supporting and wonderful helpmate
>AR> during my second delivery.  But not even he, who rubbed my back ceaselessly
>                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>AR> for 6 hours, would claim to have carried anywhere near the 'same' burden.
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>Hmmm...?  You delivered while on all fours?  (It would seem this way, if your
>husband had to rub your *back* while you were in labour, unless it was the case
>that you switched back and went onto your back after he rubbed your back)

Many women the world over deliver in a squatting position, and in fact, many
U.S. hospitals will provide a "squat bar" for her to hold on to at the foot
of the delivery bed for this purpose.   The woman need not be on all fours
for someone to rub her back!


>This isn's a flame, just a question - Why???  I realise that it's a valid
>labour position (another one of those things that I noticed in the delivery
>room, was a picture of labour positions), but wouldn't it be really tiring to
>do it that way?  Just curious...

I couldn't imagine it myself, but there is alot to be said for the squat
position over the "flat on back" position.


S. Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 02:04:40 GMT

In article <xxt2n0f@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes to
>kebbie:
>->I'm game... Lets hear you explain the difference between a fantasy and
>->a hypothetical situation which has NO basis or cantact with the real
>->world.
>
>i can see you need to review some history, particularly
>kebbie's explanation of the GROUP kevin darcy and the
>INDIVIDUAL kevin darcy.

You mean Kebbin thinks he's a group? He has Multiple Personality
Disorder, or what?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 31 Dec 1992 14:31:40 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: skibum.meaddata.com

In article <1992Dec30.203903.4000@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
|> In article <1hssu5INN270@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
|> 
|> >Since you're so "pro-choice," how about letting Jeffery Dahmer eat you for
|> >dinner if he wants to.  Hey, it's his body.
|>
|> If Jeff Dahmer wants to eat his own body, I would not care, nor would
|> I do anything to stop him. I wouldn't care to watch, but I would
|> certainly agree that he should be allowed to eat himself if he wishes.
|> You, on the other hand, seem to have a difficulttime comprehending the
|> difference between what he does to his *own* body, and what is done to
|> *another persons* body.
|> Try not to post without engaging yoru brain.

If Patricia Ireland wants to abort her own body, I would not care, nor would
I do anything to stop her. I wouldn't care to watch, but I would
certainly agree that she should be allowed to abort herself if she wishes.
You, on the other hand, seem to have a difficulttime comprehending the
difference between what you do to your *own* body, and what is done to
*another persons* body.
Try not to post without engaging yoru brain, or at least your spelling checker.

-- 
// John Townsend             "I thought I was      Legal Conversion Engineering
// Mead Data Central          wrong once, but         johnt@skibum.meaddata.com
// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.      I was mistaken."         ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// Miamisburg, OH  45342            8-}                          (513) 865-7250 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 04:54:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.210053.27185@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
># PS  I am not making all these anti-Garvin posts today because I have a
># fixation on her, but because:
># 
># 1.  She throws so much shit in talk.abortion, I'm afraid a good fraction
># of it sticks every day.
># 
># 2.  Since she is at least one of {pro-choice, pro-abortion, pro-abortionist}
># it will take a mountain of evidence to get a majority of regulars in this
># newsgroup to take charges of her mendacity at all seriously, while a tiny
># smidgin of evidence from her, or even her "good-as-her-bond" word appears
># enough to satisfy:
># 
># Mark Cochran   Keith Cochran   Patrick Humphrey  Dean Kaflowitz
># Steve Novak   Steven Mezias  J H Woodyatt  Jim Keegan   Brian Kauffman
># Dan King   Mark Ira Kauffman   drieux   Larry Margolis   Chris Lyman
># Ron Bense   Lefty   Gordon Storga ...
># 
># not to mention:
># 
># Adrienne Regard   Sarah McCabe  Muriel Nelson   Kathi Mills  Heather
># rocker    Teddi  Linda Birmingham  
># 
># Have I left anyone out?  More importantly, have I maligned anyone 
># unjustly?  My apologies to anyone who does not belong on one of the
># two lists above.
>
>Man this is weird behavior for Dr. Nyikos...
>
Does wierd behavior from Petey really suprise you? (I know, it was an
easy, cheap shot, but somebody had to do it...)

>Aside from the fact that I'm not particularly pleased with being a
>member of the lofty group to receive a collective j'accuse of
>credulity from Dr. Nyikos -- especially considering the lengths I go
>to to believe Mr. Holtinger in the face of repeated testimony from Ms.
>Garvin and others that lesser mortals might be satisfied with before
>writing off everthing he writes as the twisted and deranged fantasy of
>a lunatic... can anyone explain why Dr. Nyikos chose to separate the
>supposed `boys' from the supposed `girls?'  Do I want to know?
>
He's afraid we might get them net.pregnant and they might choose to
have a net.abortion?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: just passing through on way to alt.real-men.grunt.thud ....
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 07:22:16 GMT

In article <1gttoeINNnaj@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.180104.22622@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt) writes:
>
>>I think the 
>>courts should spend their energy deciding when life begins instead of
>>either trying to close or open loopholes in existing laws.
>
>I'm intrigued.  You think the *courts* should do this?
>
Amazing. Another Pro-force twit who thinks the courts are able to
make personal and medical choices for people.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Fictional Gordon-Suzanne Dialogue on Trumped-up Case 3
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:31:28 GMT

<nyikos.724953938@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>Apparently my netserver was mute for a while before it went deaf, because
>the dialogue you see below was supposedly posted, but Gordon never saw it,
>and Nadja Adolf, to whom I mailed a "sneak preview", never let Gordon 
>know of its existence.
>
>The following dialogue was inspired by a charge Gordon made about Suzanne's
>(alleged) hypocrisy in re desire to adopt unwanted children.  A few minutes
>ago I (successfully, I hope, this time!) posted my latest reply about that
>charge, and I direct you to the other post mentioning Case #3 for details.
>Very briefly, someone offered to give Suzanne the phone number of a Roxbury
>social worker who could send Suzanne some members of a gang to adopt.
>Gordon charged Suzanne with hypocrisy for not taking advantage of this 
>offer.  This led me to wonder just how broadly Gordon interprets the word
>"children", leading to the imaginary vignette you see below.  

If you were even remotely aware of what is said in this group you would
know that Suzanne is the one with the *very* broad interpretation of
"children".  She believes a 1 second fertilized egg and an 80 year old man
are both children.

>DISCLAIMER.  I do not claim the principals in the following dialogue would
>act in the manner portrayed, were they to confront each other in the 
>manner described.  Like so many philosophical dialogues, the two
>protagonists are used as a vehicle for illustrating certain ideas.

It was funny, I guess.

Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
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: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 30 Dec 92 11:11:43 CST

In article <C01L6s.11v@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.114352.28023@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel 
>Nelson) writes:
>> 
>> In article <C015K3.Ip4@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) 
>writes:
[deletia]
>> >
>> >Guess what Muriel? There were fewer abortion related deaths back then than 
>> >now -
>> >try a different line of rhetoric.  I know, the standard, "back alley, coat 
>> >hanger" image is so juicy and hard to resist by pro-aborts.  Keeps those 
>> >undecided folks shaking in their shoes. 
>> I'm sure you'll be supporting this claim with documentation
>> from unbiased sources, ....
>Muriel - you wouldn't care in any case.  You made the assertion first.
>
I made no quantitative comparisons.  You did that, and
I have yet to see you support it.

>> This is not just rhetoric for me, you misogynist twit.
>
>You are a bitter person Muriel.  
>
Actually, not most of the time.  When I run across
a MalePerson who wouldn't mind seeing more women die
if he could just save the CuteWarmFuzzyFetuses, it
does leave a funny taste in my mouth.

>> I almost lost my best friend to a self-induced abortion
>> in 1969.  I do not want to see one of my daughters lose
>> a friend in this manner. 
>
>I'm impressed by your statistics.  T-test anyone?
>
Why is it that you find it so easy to empathize
wth a preconscious organism, and so utterly impossible
to comprehend the feelings of a woman who would really
rather die than remain pregnant?

>> I'm prepared to fight your
>> agenda in order to protect the rights of young women
>> to make choices about their bodies.  
>
>You are fighting Muriel, you are!  Rhetoric is your weopon of choice.
>> 
>> muriel
>
>Young women obviously doesn't include the very young, unborn women.  God 
>capitalizes his name as should you - you yearn to play the role so 
>intensely. 

Naahhh.  I'm not playing god this week.  I know who
is, but he ain't telling.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: the imposition of ray fischer's morals?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 05:25:33 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
->While YOU may try and justify murdering infants, most of US are far
->more civilized and wouldn't for a moment consider doing so.

->But then, most of US have morals ...

who is represented in that big, uppercase "US," ray;
all of those moral folks like you who'd imprison women
for having an abortion?

you must find it vexing that everyone doesn't embrace
your personal version of morality.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: t.a. FAQ (part 1 of three)
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:31:45 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@crd.ge.com
Organization: "T.S.A.K.C"


this hasn't been posted since july 1992. given some recent
discussions, i thought i'd repost it.
From
rdsunx.crd.ge.com!crdgw1!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu
u!caen!nic.umass.edu!nic.umass.edu!ejones Sun Jun 14 20:41:35 EDT 1992
Article: 10304 of talk.abortion
Xref: rdsunx.crd.ge.com talk.abortion:10304 news.answers:835
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Date: 30 Dec 92 17:22:17 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
# While the burden of proof with regard to the slavery analogy remains
# with me, I must call for support for an assertion from Mr. Woodyatt.
# He suggests most abortion abolitionists do not consider the fetus a
# person.  I find this statement incredible, as every anti-abortionist
# with which I have ever conversed cites the personhood of the fetus as
# a basis for their position.  This is true even those who would allow
# exceptions for rape.  To be sure, I find the latter position
# inconsistent.  However, inconsistency does not preclude people from
# holding a position.  Thus, I would like to see something concrete to
# back Mr. Woodyatt's assertion.  I shall remain skeptical in the
# meantime.

My assertion is simply that -- an assertion.  I can back it up with
nothing more concrete than what you can your skepticism.  I assert
that people may claim to hold fetuses to be persons, but if they
refuse to treat them as persons, their claims are hollow.  Most
`abortion abolitionists' I have spoken with -- and I have spoken with
a fair number -- would allow exceptions for rape, incest (why incest
is a mystery to me) and grave threat to the physical health of the
mother.  As you realize, this is inconsistent with a position that
fetuses are persons.

Even those that do not support exceptions for rape, health threat,
etcetera usually do not support punishments for illegal abortion
similar to current penalties for premeditated murder.  My experience
is that those who actually *do* support such penalties and would
refuse to allow exceptions are typically Operation Rescue types with
bad attitudes.

Ask Doug Holtsinger whether Operation Rescue provides a representative
sample of the anti-abortion movement.

# (I note in passing the Republican party has removed this inconsistency
# from their platform.)

Yeah, so?  I note they are curiously silent on punishment for illegal
abortion.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``Man has not a single right which is
| J H Woodyatt              |  the product of anything but might.''
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |                           -- Mark Twain
+---------------------------+  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion