HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: "Abortion" on a not-pregnant woman
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:12:56 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>>>> NNyikos

>>>>> How many abortion clinics have you seen the inside of?  

>>>> How many abortion clinics have YOU seen the inside of?

>>> None, and that's part of my point: very few people are allowed to see
>>> what goes on.  I asked whether Judge Kelly of Wichita, who was so 
>>> zealous in guarding Tiller's right to carry on business as usual,
>>> ever got to see the inside of Tiller's clinic.  I asked whether any
>>> of the federal marshals who so zealously carried out Kelly's orders,
>>> ever saw an abortion being performed in Tiller's clinic.  I'm still
>>> waiting for the answers.

>> Few, if any, of those federal marshals have seen what goes on during
>> coronary bypass surgery.  Maybe they should, because...

> Still you miss the point.  Few, if any of those federal marshals arrested
> people for blocking coronary bypass surgery units.  And I don't think
> Judge Kelly ever took such a case.

It's really a shame that you decided to delete my rather lightweight attempt
at satire, Peter.  I did not miss your point at all; you're missing the point
that Judge Kelly upheld Dr. Tiller's right to continue his legal activities
and that the federal marshals are sworn to uphold the law, interpreted in
this case by Judge Kelly.

> Message to pro-lifers (most pro-choicers won't follow this one): on top
> of which, coronary bypass surgery is done to save lives.  Abortion is
> done to end them.

This statement is not correct.  Many abortions are performed to save the
life of the mother.  Not 'most,' just 'many.'

>> I know there are at least three regular contributors to t.a who have
>> had abortions.  If what goes on inside of an abortion clinic is so scary,
>> don't you think they'd be warning us away?

>> In other words, Peter, what is your point?

> I don't generalize about abortion clinics in general, nor about what
> happens any given day in any given abortion clinic.  It's like Russian
> Roulette: if they don't let you look at which chamber the bullet is in,
> would you play the game?

Of course you don't generalize, Peter (that's sarcasm, btw), but you do
smear and attempt to argue from the specific to the general.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sheehan@pagosa.scd.ucar.edu (Tim Sheehan)
Subject: Re: Nyikos Goes Under (WAS Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Organization: NCAR/UCAR
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:10:14 GMT

talk.rape is a newsgroup devoted to discussing ways of preventing
rape. The scope of discussion tends to be rather broad, and the tone
of the discussions can be heated. But the issue to be discussed is
rape, and facts are needed if any argument is to be given attention.

In the past month or so, talk.rape has been inundated with bickering
about legal points. Now it looks as if the group is to be inundated
by arguments about abortion.

If forced abortions are occuring, that is a rape issue, and I would
bet that it gets a lively discussion in talk.rape. However, I have 
not seen any evidence on the scope of forced abortion presented in 
the discussion that has been cross posted to talk.rape.

Therefore, I request that you either present some evidence about the
scope of the problem, if it exists, or stop cross posting this thread
to talk.rape.

-- 
-Tim-

sheehan@ncar.ucar.edu
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:31:29 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Aug27.021950.4211@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>I believe it's wrong to kill any person simply because they suffer 
>pain.  Who are we to decide whether any person is fit to live or
>not?  That's a judgement which I can't make for someone else, nor 
>would I want anyone else to make that judgement for me.  
> 

 I believe it's wrong to force a woman to undergo an unwanted pregnancy
simply because the fetus will become a person. Who are we to decide
whether a woman should give birth or not? That's a judgement which I
can't make for someone else, nor would I want anyone else to make that
judgement for me.

(Hope that isn't too radical for you, Doddie).

>Doug Holtsinger

                                                              MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Keywords: Reinforcements
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 03:00:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.013022.2371@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

}The constitution gives the people the right to commit murder?

Darn straight it does.  Maybe not spelled out in so many words, but 
it does provide for your right to kill, nay, even your duty.  As 
a matter of fact, they will even give you a gun to do so.

Doug, does the word "draft" mean anything to you (besides a breeze in a 
room, that is)?

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Chaney's problems - call for discussion (was: Re: Garvin gets stabbed in the back! (was Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:43:17 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>In article <adams.714668119@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>
>And Steve Franklin nails Gordon Storga! 
Hardly.

>>>There, I think that's much more fitting Gordon. Now, why not stop being
>>>an impudent little ass, and stop quipping everyone of Steve Chaney's points
>>>because you feel that there is an opportunity for you to appear witty.
>>>You fail miserably every time, and I am forced to look at your nauseating
>>>.sig to boot...
>>
>>You've devolved to attacking his sig...does that mean you've conceded the
>>debate?

>If that means Steve Franklin's conceded the debate, it means that all
>those who ignore my unavoidable points and merely attack MY .sig,
>concede several DOZEN debates I've challenged them to. 

Uhm, you have failed to respond, althoug you PROMISED in email, to my
challenge to your assertion that pro choice means pro adult/child sex.  You
LOSE by your own standards.  Don't say this isn't true, either.  I've saved
the email where you promised it.

>Your side has a LOT more to lose on that standard than our side does,
>Adams. 
I have yet to see a single case where your arguments are even lucid, let
alone convincing.

>>BTW, Gordon's demonstrated a lot more intelligence and reasonableness than
>>you have.  He's demonstrated the ability to carry on rational discussions.

>With whom? His houseplants? Certainly no one around here, at least not
>much. Let's not forget that funny part where Gordon Storgidius jumped
>in to help Dan King get his foot out of his mouth over that $100
>challenge he can't afford to pay up for, and I and Kevin Welch both
>stomped on him like a roach on the sidewalk. 

I judge by more than one simple exchange.  Gordon and I carried on a
reasoned, rational discussion over on talk.religion.misc....

>If Steve Franklin had been there, Gordon would have found himself a
>shell and promptly crawled into it, while Dan Astro Boy King would
>have quickly found a rocket and flown it to Mars. 
Not.  You are quite deluded, aren't you?

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: "only 3 doctors ... perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 18:43:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.035846.40919@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

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

>>>>> There are only 3 doctors in the United States that perform third
>>>>> trimester abortions.  They *only* perform them for reasons of serious
>>>>> health problems.

>>>> Please provide verifiable proof for this claim.

>>> I've told you before that I'm not going to do your homework for you,
>>> Doug.  You'll have to contact 60 Minutes yourself.

>> a) Mr. Margolis claims that only three doctors in the United
>>    States perform third trimester abortions, but 60 Minutes
>>    claims that only three doctors specialize in late-term
>>    abortions.
>>
>> b) The transcript does not support the claim of Mr. Margolis
>>    that these doctors perform abortions only for reasons of
>>    serious health problems.
>>
>> The transcript does not mention the source of Stahl's claim
>> about the "three doctors".  I may write to 60 Minutes to ask
>> them for a source.  It doesn't appear that Mr. Margolis is
>> willing to track down the source.

> That's right - I'm not.  As far as I know, it's true.  

In other words, you're unable to admit that you were wrong
when you stated that 60 Minutes supported your claims, 
and now you've fallen back on ``truth by blatant assertion'' 
to support your claims.  I guess TbBA is acceptable only
when Larry Margolis uses it. 


 
>Larry Margolis


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Abortion: My Views
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:20:25 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>> Then are you against legislating in the areas of homicide, 
>>>> rape, and theft?
>>
>>> These are not necessairly moral issues.
>>
>>If homicide, rape, and theft laws are not based upon morality,
>>then what are they based upon? 

>Self interest.

Or perhaps, more accurately, the above items all deny a person of some
right:

  homicide : right to life
  rape : right to bodily autonomy/not be harmed
  theft : right to property.

Similarly, the following 'moral' issues do not appear to deny ANYONE's rights,
so long as the are consensual:

  prostitution
  gambling
  drinking
  drug use
 
  etc.

Thus, any laws restricting them are questionable, since they involve purely
subjective value judgements and attempt to regulate activity that does not
interfere with another individuals personal autonomy.

Often, the case is made that no action is done in a vaccum and that some
things, such as drug use, have detrimental impacts on society as a whole
because of the costs associated with them.  Everything depends on what you
value.  If you value liberty, these are opportunity costs.  

But legalizing these listed activities produces a different set of costs
than making them illeagal.  So long as people wish to continue these
activities, they will.  At some level, the costs outweigh the gains, and
some people stop.  But making these things illegal simply spawns a whole
new set of problems (prohibition and the war on drugs being prime
examples).

As a society, once we get past our own basic, personal rights, we begin to 
interfere with other peoples rights, because we disagree on morals.

For those who wish to impose their morals on others, I ask one simple
question.  Are you willing to have other people's morals imposed on you?
No?  Then please be self-consistant!

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Good News from a Premie!
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:51:32 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com wrote:
# >>Lemme see -- if all third trimester fetuses can survive independently
# >>of their mothers, and third trimester abortion is banned to prevent
# >>pregnant women from willfully killing their fetuses, then...
# >>
# >>	...how about we just `separate' 24 week and older fetuses from
# >>their mothers, and pretend it isn't abortion?
# 
# I heard on the news this week that a little girl named Sasha was born last
# spring in Florida at 22 weeks and 15 ounces (yes that's less than a pound,
# folks), and she just went home from the hospital this week perfectly healthy
# and happy, with no evidence whatsoever of any damage, much less brain
# damage, from her ordeal.

My word.  That was a long hospital stay.  I wonder how Sasha's parents
afforded it.  I certainly wouldn't be able to.  I'd have to rely on
the charity of my fellow Americans.


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

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors ... perform third trimester abortions"
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 19:25:23 GMT

In article <nyikos.715284833@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scaroli
a.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>"List more doctors?"  I'm still looking for someone to complete 
>the list of three.

You and your roving band of terrorists will just have to
do your own research, Nyikos.  Why do you think that anyone
wants to provide you with more names to slander?

>So far there is George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas.  Who and where are
>the other two?

They're human beings who don't want women to die or be
injured when it's preventable.  They're people who place
the welfare of existing children, men, and women above
that of a fetus.  They're better off not having to put
up with your harrassment.

Susan
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Another reason to vote for Bush
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 06:01:00 GMT

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:

>>In article <1992Aug21.214108.28288@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>># In article <1992Aug16.002117.980@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
>># decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>># 
>># > Rights in the United States are based on the COnstitution of the United
>># > States.  This was not a democratically arrived at document, but the
>># > product of rather an elite group of the landed gentry.  
>># 
>># That's funny, I always thought the preamble to the Constitution said
>># "We, the people...", not "We, the elite group of landed gentry....". 

>>Neither did it say, ``We, the quorum of elected representatives
>>necessary for ratification, ...''

>Nor did it say "...and having the necessary personal funds to make the trip
>to Philladelphia and support ourselves during the convention..."

Well, ya knew it had to happen.

It's the Constitutional Cascade.

> -Steve

                      -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting)
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:01:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.001851.11608@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>And the net.access removal requests (among other punitive actions
>requested), came from Drieux and Scott Roby, among others, who were led
>into believing I was posting as Dennis Hall, and who wrote asking that "I
>be stopped."

(1)  I wasn't led into believing anything.  I found out the facts for myself.

(2)  Once the sysadmin at CSUS explained to me that the "Dennis Hall" 
account was issued to Steve Chaney, I went out of my way to make sure that 
the sysadmin understood that I didn't feel he needed "punishing" for his 
stupid deception. 

(3)  My statements could only have been of worry to someone posing as a 
fictitious "Dennis Hall".  Why did my statements worry Steve Chaney?

-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: patrick@owlnet.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Keywords: decay@ *this*, Bore.
Organization: Just Patrick, as usual, on his lunch hour
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:43:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.181411.21227@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.175039.20507@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
>
>One more article which proves that we are at war, folks. People like
>Susan Garvin deserve nothing less than utter humiliation and the
>desparity of seeing their abortion clinics being slammed shut by the
>Human Life Amendment. 

Yeah, we know all about your little fantasies, Dennis.  

>I personally would like to see what bra-burning feminazi crazies like
>Suzie Q, will say when it happens. The look on her face when abortion
>doctors are being hauled to prison by the cops, is worth a million
>dollars. In conservative estimates. 

That's hilarious, considering you've never seen her...of course, it's a
lot safer for you to act like the venomous little cretin you are that way,
isn't it?

>I can't wait to see the look on her face when she has to resort to
>Coat Hanger Terrorism, only to get her own ass hauled off to jail.

I can't wait to see the look on *your* face a half-century from now, when 
the realization finally seeps into that septic-tank brain of yours that it
never was meant to happen the way you wanted it to.  (Hey, I'll only be
87 then, and I'll still be capable of a good laugh at the antics of folks
like you.)

>But then again, Suzie Q Garvin in prison, would be a gross insult to
>the other cockroaches that already inhabit those jails. 

Yep.  You *know* cockroaches, all right.  (And people are wondering why
I don't apologize to YOU?)
 
>Really, Suzie Q, bitch and gripe all you want about coat hangers and
>bra-burning anti-male feminism all you want. This is one person who
>gets his entertainment by seeing assholes like you bitch and gripe and
>squirm like the worms you are. 

...when you're not too busy running away from them like the loud-mouthed,
abusive little coward that you are.

>Shall we see an encore response by you, to this article, or is your
>head still so far up your ass that you can floss your own teeth with
>your hair? 

Quit projecting, Steve/Dennis -- that's been your problem from the first
day you spewed your venom and racism out on this newsgroup.

>Oh, and it's + /h:j, Susan.
>
>In other words, you have to actually write your article as if it were
>written by Dean Kaflowitz. In other words, FORGE FORGE FORGE, Suzie Q. 

Whatta maroon.  Funny how it works on *this* system -- but I guess we're
just not as fortunate as you to have access to Internet on your mighty Commie 
128...

(besides, you're the resident expert in forgeries -- you should be giving
her the lesson yourself...)

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey(patrick@owlnet.rice.edu)Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  +1 713 527-4989 at Rice. 713 981-5952 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.

      "God just THINKS he's Steve Chaney." -- me, on 1992 August 31st
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Fetal slavery???
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 01:17:05 GMT

In article <nyikos.714171851@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>Is there a condition of slavery worse than that of a fetus, who had
>no say-so in where he/she is, like a condemned prisoner awaiting 
>execution for the crime of being where he/she is not wanted?

Slavery connotes forced work.  The fetus's position is more aptly
compared to imprisonment (except that it would die if you removed it,
making freedom for the fetus a rather ridiculous goal).

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: A message from Siren
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 22:37:47 GMT

Siren wrote me from a friend's account.

--- --- ---
[deletia]
	
	Also, would you post the following for me in t.a.:

Mr. Chaney:

	Please stop throwing my name at people as I have been told
that you are doing.  I have enjoyed most of my stay, even though some
of it is less than savory.  To most people who have any impression of
me, I am sure they will be perfectly capable of judging my virtues and
shortcomings without your constant harping about it.
	I have disagreed with people, sometimes even vituperic and
acrimonious people, during my year-long fling with t.a., but I try to
forgive and forget, and assume that other people will of their own
benevolence-- as James Steerforth said to David Copperfield:

"Remember me at my best."

	There are honorable adversaries and friends that I will not
forget, and bitter enemies who I have yet to forgive or forget, but I
sincerely hope that I have provided an example of someone who is not
afraid to be true to her own self and fostered some decent discussion
in my time.  Using my name the way I think you are serves no
constructive purpose and violates what I think I stood for, and I
beseech you to stop doing so.

	And to the rest of the people, may I offer some very humble
opinion with trepidation:

	The problem of abortion choice is so complex and intricately
related to many other facets of the society that it is possible that a
"correct" answer may never be arrived at, and will never be as long as
people stick to the absolutist approach of "this is the supreme and
immovable truth regardless of circumstances".

	Don't try to argue absolutes.  It is like arguing infinities--
it simply will never hang together logically.  It is also, oh, so
flame-inducing, all the time!

--- --- ---

She (or the friend whose account it was) specifically requested me not
to reply to the account from which she sent this, so I currently have
no means of contacting Siren.
From: ursic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:20:17 EST
Distribution: usa

In article <siyemop@Unify.Com>, sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
> 
> That is exactly what I want.  I do consider it a person at conception and I
> think murder charges should be filed against any women who gets an abortion
> - and my wife has said the same thing...

I'm sure she mimics your every word.

Say, you aren't Catholic by any chance, are you? - J.J.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion