HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:19:06 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Aug21.171223.19994@watson.ibm.com> Larry writes:

> In  <1992Aug21.132010.13917@menudo.uh.edu>  HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu
> (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> > In <1992Aug20.212437.17478@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis writes:
> > > In  <1992Aug20.190712.18672@menudo.uh.edu>  HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu
> > > (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> > > > --Centers for Disease Control Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, July 19
> > > > --Vital Statistics of the US, 1988. Vol. II-- Mortality.
> > > > --all figures are for 1988
> >
> > > ... these are the stats I have - also for 1988.)
> >
> >   And what year were your figures for?
> 
> As I stated, also for 1988.  Those seem to be the latest numbers available -
> I stopped by the Alan Guttmacher Institute yesterday.
> Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

  Oops, sorry Larry.  I missed that date the first time through your post 
(obviously!).

Jim Miller
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 92 03:20:30 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Aug23.235317.4757@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <BtFpEG.Kzn@rice.edu> 
>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey) writes:
>
>> Whether I *do* apologize
>> to Chaney is a matter between me and him -- and nothing said by either 
>> Kellmeyer or Holtsinger will have any relevance to that.  It's not their
>> decision to make, whether they think it is or not.
>
>So what's holding up your apology?  
>
>People who have publically expressed their clear and unequivocal
>objection to Patrick Humphrey's use of term "fat black ass": 
>
>   Steve Chaney
>   Doug Holtsinger
.
.
.

Gee, I wonder if we got a list together of people who express a clear and
unequivocal objection to Doug's use of the news system we could get him to
apologize and stop posting.

Tell me Doug, do the *number* of people who object to something have any
bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the event or action?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:37:47 GMT

In article <Bt3HvD.DHM@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:

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

>>best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:

>>> Obviously, the right to life argument, when used in favor of the fetus, 
>>> would only apply if you believed the fetus to be a human life.  I, for one,
>>> suspect that it is not - it is probably some form of canine or arachnid.

>> A member of the human species is actually a dog or a spider?  That is the 
>> funniest thing I've read all week.  You're in desperate need of a biology 
>> lesson.  

> I smiled as well but that was because I assumed he was being facetious.

I didn't think he was kidding.  I constantly see attempts by 
the pro-aborts to de-humanize the child in the abortion debate, 
and his attempt was no different from the others that I've seen. 


Doug Holtsinger


 "For some of us, abortion on demand *is* no more serious than demanding a
  hamburger."
   -- Adrienne Regard
From: tonym@world.std.com (Tony Matt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Wanted: Address for Center for Reproductive Law Policy
Date: 18 Aug 92 03:19:40 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


I was watching the weekend network news on NBC recently and saw a 
representative of the above group (name may not be exact) by the
name of Simon Heller.  I would like to contact him, but do not
have any address or phone number (I was not able to find any
reference to this organization in the library).  Any leads would
be appreciated; email preferred.

Regards,
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc.alt.politics.bush
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:11:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.212959.13499@pwcs.stpaul.gov> 
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

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

>>> Chris Lyman  
>> [.. out of context quote deleted ..]

> How does it feel being the target of your own tactics?

I've never quoted you or anyone else out of context. 

>> You're a sexist for believing that all women think alike on the issue
>> of abortion.

> You are not fooling anyone.

Neither are you.


>Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
>"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger

Chris Lyman is a sexist for believing that all women think alike on 
the issue of abortion.
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:36:21 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <1992Aug16.184201.5867@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu writes:
|fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
|> So you would be pro-choice if the technique was more humane?
|Killing an innocent child can never be done in a humane fashion. 

That's nice, Doug.  I'm sure we all agree with you.
Now, what does your statement have to do with abortion?
Try to stay on-topic!

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: There's every reason to vote for Bush
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:46:44 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <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.

Would you be happier if he said "donate the USE of tissue, blood, and/or
organs for up to 9 months to save their lives"?  

Sarah McCabe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Other Flip-Floppers on abortion
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 14:36:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.143621.25264@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug18.140511.17562@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> 
>> I think you might be able to add Bill Clinton to your list of
>> Democrats who have changed their positions on abortion.  Here's
>> what my local paper had to say about Clinton's changing stance 
>> on abortion:
>> 
>>   "Clinton's aides, meanwhile, also have used the word evolution
>>    to describe their candidate's shift in views on abortion.  As
>>    governor of Arkansas, Clinton declared that ``I am opposed to
>>    abortion.''  In 1989, he signed state legislation requiring
>>    parental notification.  As a candidate for president, Clinton
>>    has moved to a more clear-cut abortion-rights position.  He
>>    said he would not veto Medicaid funding of abortions for poor
>>    women." 
>> 
>>    The Raleigh News and Observer, Monday, August 17, 1992
>> 
>> It appears that the radical pro-abortionists in the Democratic party 
>> have forced Mr. Clinton to embrace a minority-held position. 
>
>Really?  Do you have any evidence to support your statement?

The Democratic party's platform, which supports publicly funded
abortions in Medicaid, Clinton's and Gore's support of such plans,
and the refusal of the party to even let Gov. Casey speak at their
convention.

Still, Clinton's "evolution" is topped by Al Gore.
He went from pro-life Hyde Amendment supporter in '85 to
total no-restrictions pro-abortion-rights in '88, during
(you guessed it) the Presidential primaries.

---
Pat
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 00:05:18 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Aug18.133317.16209@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
><.. note follow-ups to talk.abortion, once again ..>
>In article <1992Aug18.055058.14190@watson.ibm.com> 
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> Premature infants that have been born between 21 and 24 weeks have
>>> been known to survive.  The reported "third trimester" figures that
>>> you cite do not represent all post-viability abortions, but only those
>>> performed after 24 weeks.

>> In other words, my figures address Mr. Moore's misconception regarding
>> the number of third-trimester abortions, and your comments had nothing
>> to do with what he said (quoted above).

>I'm entitled to point out that your figures do not represent the number 
>of post-viability abortions.  That's all I was doing.  Don't take it so
>hard. 

You didn't make it clear that you were addressing a different issue
(viability, rather than third trimester).

You haven't yet answered my questions regarding what *percentage* of
fetuses from 21 to 24 weeks survive.  If it's something like 5-10%, I
wouldn't consider it post-viability.  If it's over 50%, I would.
Between those it gets murky.

--
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 12 Aug 1992 23:59:59 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Aug12.185924.11981@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <og33a8g@fido.asd.sgi.com> 
>cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

>> This morning's news had a lovely story about Bush's reactions
>> to a question about how he'd react if a grandchild of his sought
>> an abortion.  In his reply, he said that the woman was the only
>> one who could decide, ultimately.

>I heard he said that he would try to talk them out of getting an
>abortion.  That's the best a father could do, considering that
>abortion on demand is legal in all 50 states.  

Well, in Bushie's case the father (or grandfather) can try to remove
his (grand)daughter's freedom to choose. But I guess that he doesn't
consider his (grand)daughter to be a real person who is capable
of making such decisions. After all, shes only a woman.

>>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

>Doug Holtsinger

Eric
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: E-mail, privacy, and reality
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:22:13 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

This was originally under the Revised... thread. I've extracted it as
most probably don't want to read chaney and responses to him, or wade
through 100s of lines for one important (maybe) bit of info.

In talk.abortion, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

@I've got some real eye-opening news for you. There is no such thing
@as private e-mail. It can be read at any number of points in the net
@by those with high enough levels of access. How do I know this? Because
@I've had some mail intercepted by a third party at an intermediate portion
@of the path and printed. The intended receiver of this e-mail has seen
@the printed copy thereof, and, as a matter of fact, caused them much
@trouble, as it turned out that although the company had USENET access,
@the employees were not allowed to send and receive e-mail or read news
@groups or use 'talk' or 'phone'. Yes, they even had printed transcripts
@of real time 'talk/phone' sessions. Something you'd think was really
@private and hard to do.

Have fun with this, net.people. It was a bit of misery at the time.
Fortunately, my business allows me to post, and to use e-mail.

Ron
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Extremism
Date: 20 Aug 92 02:41:03 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center


One of the things that "pro-life" folks here like to present is that
pro-choice is the opposite of being pro-life.  That isn't true.
The opposite of banning abortion would be forcing abortion.

Think about it a moment.  A whole lot of the objections that some
of the "pro-life" here offer might be true.  Likewise, a whole lot
of the projections you hear might be true also.  Consider if 
abortion were forced whenever pregnancy were evident then you 
could logically expect the movement to vanish in a generation.
If the oft mentioned "abortion on demand" were really supported, 
then you might expect some pro-choice folks to endorse the demand
when it were made by the government, rather than the woman involved.

No, pro-choice is hardly the opposite of the "pro-life" thought, it
is merely in opposition to it.  I can't speak for all pro-choicers,
but I imagine many of them would fight against any government mandated
abortion at least as strongly as they do now against any government 
attempt at prohibition.  

If you go to the extreme opposite of a governmental ban on abortion
you wind up with a governmental mandate of abortion.  If you go 
halfway, you wind up in an area where the government neither bans
nor endorses abortion.  In other words, the government doesn't 
get involved at all.  The purest middle of the road philosophy
would be that the government should make no laws whatsoever regarding
abortion.  

Of course there are grey areas.  The decision isn't exactly pro
or con.  Those who endorse government involvement in banning late 
term abortions might find their objections somewhat fruitless were
the government to mandate early abortions, should it find such a 
posture in its own best interests.

You can argue about fetal development and personhood all you want, 
but I don't think the government has any business being involved
in abortion, or human reproduction, for that matter.


--
       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
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:44:41 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu

From article by gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis):
> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach):
> 
> }            Handicaps CAN be risen above.
> 
> I can fully agree with that, but that's a teeny bit different from
> "the world is what you make it," which I disagreed with...

Not much different that I can see, at all.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Not So Good Bumper Sticker
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:59:29 GMT

In article <BsxtD6.IE8@acsu.buffalo.edu> 
v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:

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

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

>>> Speaking of bumper stickers, I saw one that really says it all about
>>> the religious right's goals:

>>>                 Praise the Lord, and Damn the Constitution

>> Considering the shakey foundation upon which the Supreme Court
>> discovered the so-called right to abortion, I would think this
>> bumper sticker would be better suited for describing the 
>> goals of the pro-abortion movement.  

> Yeah, uhmm, especially the first part, right?

Are you suggesting that a pro-abortionist cannot hold religious 
views on abortion?  Perhaps you'd better talk to Mark Kaufmann,
his views on abortion seems to be driven primarily by religion.

> Sheesh, where did *that* come from?

     "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
we want to be precise)..."
  -- Gloria Feldt,
     chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona


>Mike Cluff


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:14:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.020044.22759@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>the chaney/hall person posting as
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes to patrick:
>-> 1) FACT: YOU SAID YOU HAD DOCUMENTATION THAT "CHANEY
>->    POSTS AS HALL."
>
>evidence confirming this fact has been posted
>repeatedly dennis. do you think repeated denials will
>make people forget?

No such evidence exists, Roby. 

>charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.

Still not in the commune, I guess.

===============================================================================
		  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: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Barbara Bush on Abortion
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 23:43:34 GMT

In article <lefty-140892110310@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:

Thanks for the redundancy, Righty. 

Whoops, I forgot: you're Lefty today. Righty's your friend in the
bathroom...  

===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Israeli Woman With Record Number Of Embryos
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 22:44:09 GMT

So, I was checking out the Chron's News In Brief section (I think it
was that) last night over a cheeseburger and fries, and I see this
story that raises an eyebrow. I'm not going to reprint it, but here's
the gist:

This woman in Israel took a fertility drug and now she's pregnant with
twelve (12) eight-week-old embryos. The story goes on to say that
surgeons are planning to `extract' (i.e. abort) an unspecified number
of them if the woman is to survive. They're hoping that some of the
remaining embryos aren't killed in the process.

Now, I suppose it's fair to say that if the U.S. Constitution were
explicitly to ban abortions in *all* cases, as some would like, by
recognizes a fetus's (okay, or an embryo's) right to life, then this
woman would have to be considered as good as dead if she were an
American, right?

At the same time, any compromise on the position that a
zygote/embryo/fetus has a right to life, except in seemingly arbitrary
cases where the Patriarchy deems that someone else's rights override,
is perverse and contorted.

How anyone can say that abortion is murder, and then in the same
breath excuse such murder on the arbitrary grounds that to do
otherwise might discommode someone, is utterly beyond me.

Yet it happens. Regularly. Saying you oppose legal abortion except
when the life of the mother is in danger, or the pregnancy is the
result of rape or incest, is *not* a compromise.

It's a distortion.


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

It really pisses me off that I have to explicitly state that the
opinions expressed above are not guaranteed to be shared by anyone
other than myself, including my employer, or people will take it to
mean I'm trying to speak on behalf of a mindless engine of capitalism,
which I am not.
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: abortifacients
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:36:15 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Aug10.182421.20088@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.
This is a false statement.  IUD abortions do not stop beating hearts.
Time to go shopping for a new .sig.

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: A crack in the iron curtain?
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:22:49 GMT


Beth and Jim - I am leaving town for a few days.  I'll
answer on this thread when I get back.  The posts are too 
long to do it quickly.

Susan

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31791 alt.flame:12081