HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Only God Can Help Us!
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 00:08:31 GMT

In <1992Sep2.083518.20871@nuchat.sccsi.com> lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher) writes:

>Peter Nyikos satated that -

>"Not per year, it does not. You have to go back to the 1940's
>before penicillin to have more than 1000 women dying of abortion."

I was referring here specifically to the USA.

>Well, to set you straight, that is utter bullshit....One woman dies
>every *3* minutes from a improperly performed abortion. Whether it
>be self-induced, or a back alley doctors mistake, the *FACT* is that
>it happens every *3* minutes....lesse, that would be how many a year?

>math time - 480 a day, multiplied by 7 = 3360, times 52 = 174720.
>That is roughly 170,000 deaths due to 'poorly' administered abortions.
>All the more reason to fight for it to be SAFE and LEGAL....This figure
>of 3 per minute is worldwide..I do no know the statistics for just
>America...but as you can see, you are WAY wrong....

Not about America.  I'm curious to hear what your source is for the
statistics you give.  Is there not a blackout of information in China
about deaths due to abortion, where it is not only LEGAL but often
MANDATED by law?  Are your statistics broken down into deaths due
to legal and illegal abortions?  Spontaneous and induced abortions?
If not, you don't have much of a case, yet, for legalizing abortion
worldwide.

Peter Nyikos




Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago)
Subject: Re: SIMPLE ANSWER
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 07:33:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.213922.4438@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>In article <kefK9b600Uh7Q9hktk@andrew.cmu.edu> Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>How about the parental consent law.  Parents should be allowed to know
>>what their child is doing.  If the child goes ahead and has an abortion
>>with a judge's consent, the parents can punish that child for their
>>decision if they wish.  This is such a simple concept it is hard to
>>believe anyone should be opposed to it.
>
>Well, I oppose a parental consent law.  On several grounds....
>  1--I'm a firm believer in the government staying the hell out of
>     my own business (as long as I don't break the law).  I don't
>     believe the government has any business regulating family life,
>     do you?  The government has enough problems regulating itself.
>  2--Do the parents know that their child is screwing?  Most of the
>     time they don't.  Therefore, your agrument "Parents should be
>     allowed to know what their child is doing" is invalid as most of
>     the time, they don't know.  They can only trust that their child
>     is behaving according to the values they've instilled. 
>  3--Minors are the least likely to avail themselves of the legal
>     system--they are the most intimidated by it.  To give them only
>     one alternative to telling their parents (something some of them would
>     rather die than do) -- going before a judge-- is tantamount to
>     giving them no legal alternative, thereby encouraging illegal
>     abortions.  Listen to reason here, not emotions.
>  4--if a minor is unfit to decide whether to continue a pregnancy or
>     not, what in the hell makes you think that that same minor is fit
>     to be a mother?  Or make the decision to give the resulting baby
>     up for adoption?  Both motherhood and adoption are much tougher
>     decisions to make.  Or, are you suggesting that those decisions
>     are best made by another person?  I surely hope not, as one can
>     only resolve with themselves if they make their life decisions.

5--if one or both of the parents are abusive it could be *very* dangerous
   for the girl. It's unfortunate, but not all parents are kind and
   understanding in such situations.

Vickie

  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:16:17 GMT

In <1992Sep5.013427.10017@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
In article <1992Sep3.194041.11683@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Sep2.114515.10758@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >>>

>>> this is beneath you, bill, at least i think it is.
>>> suggestions that crazies (chaney, DOD, darcy,
>>> franklin, etc.) seek help are made daily,
>>> sometimes more often than that.
> 
>> If these people are "crazy", I'm unaware of it.  
>
> my apologies. i hadn't realized you were so far removed
> from what had been posted to t.a. over the past several
> months. nonetheless, just the comments of others over
> the past few days should have given you some idea. i do
> find it kind of odd that you'd post like this without
> knowing what you were talking about. 

Apparently this means that I would have concurred with your 
assessment had I not been "so far removed from...t.a.", which 
is an incorrect assumption on your part.  

>> Chaney (for example) is outrageous but certainly no
>> more so than Novak, who is never characterized as
>> disordered.
>
> does it strike you that there is a reason for that,
> bill? btw, do you really think that "outrageous" is the
> proper term for chaney or for novak? do you see their
> net.conduct as similar?

The tone of their posts is pretty similar.  I think
outrageous applies to both.  Crazy, however, doesn't
seem to apply to either. 

>> I have to believe that armchair Usenet diag-
>> nosticians simply have too little information to
>> label other participants as mentally disordered.
>
> that's ok. i have no problem with your believing that.
> i don't share your belief. i think i have exactly the
> right information to make the labels that i make.

Excellent.  In that case, perhaps you'd be willing 
to provide a list of symptoms which substantiate your 
assessment of Doug (and Chaney, if you like).  

> you know bill, you seem a bit overly-sensitive in this
> thread, almost paranoid. whatever you thought your
> original point was, it didn't come out.

I think you make my point for me, given the ease with 
which you toss about clinical labels.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Are you trying to threaten me, little man? (Was: Badges...)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 05:03:15 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  <nyikos.716073409@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep8.234357.2424@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sa
>
> >Reading comprehension time, Peter.  Keith never threatened you at all.
> >I made an offer to you (which, although you are perfectly free to
> >decline, you have not even offered me the courtesy of a response).
>
> And since you can't seem to tell the difference between an innocent
> babe in your womb and various objects up your intestinal tract, I
> hereby make a counteroffer.
>
> I will provide you with all the free enemas you desire in return
> for a pledge not to have an abortion unless your very life is
> threatened by continuing the pregnancy.

You seem to have missed the point.  Since you seem to think it's OK to
force women to give up their right to bodily autonomy for the sake of a
fetus, Sarah was asking you whether you'd be willing to give up *your*
right to bodily autonomy (to Keith, who volunteered to be her knight in
shining armor (although I like him better in his tutu)) for the sake of
a fetus (specifically, the one she'd agree not to abort).  So, your
counter-offer doesn't make sense.

Not up *her* intestinal tract, Peter.  Up yours.

:-)
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL (and dozens of others)
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:04:34 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes about Larry Margolis:

> To those not familiar with Larry Margolis, he has a reputation on
> talk.abortion for dismissing an argument based on a source he does
> not like (including most if not all pro-life sources) as "speculation."
> If one then does not argue the point any further, other pro-choicers in that 
> newsgroup will sometimes jump in and accuse the "speculator" of lying,
> because (s)he failed to back up her/his "speculation" with facts.

Pot, kettle, black, Nyikos.  To those not familiar with Peter Nyikos, he has
earned a reputation on talk.abortion for using sleazy tactics of innuendo:
he's attempted to smear doctors who perform abortions by posting incomplete
accounts of alleged wrong-doing by individual abortionists and he's indulged
in baseless speculation that abortion clinic workers bombed their own clinics.

> An accusation is not an indictment, much less a conviction.  I wanted to
> make these accusations in a timely fashion, and then if someone has
> evidence exonerating these people, it can be brought forward.  
> Margolis is of course free to make counter-accusations about me.
> "Complete ignorance" is a distortion.  I do not *know* these things about
> the clergymen or Joan Campbell in particular, but from what I say below,
> I do not believe most of them could have risen so high in their 
> respective organizations if they espoused the three beliefs which I
> accuse them of having abandoned.

The burden of evidence is on _you_, Nyikos.  When can we expect to see some
independent, verifiable evidence of your accusations?  Or can we expect an
Olympic-caliber demonstration of back-pedalling?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
       "I ain't man enuff to be a mudder!" -- Robin Williams as "Popeye"
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Burning Their Own Clinics! (formerly: Item for Chaney's study...)
Date: 14 Sep 1992 11:30:15 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


   Pro-choice folks bombing abortion clinics?  Next they will try
to claim that Steven Chaney is a plant by the pro-choice movement
to discredit anti-abortionists.

-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 22:51:24 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  <Sep12.082914.20657@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>  sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
> In article <24799@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes
> |> In talk.abortion, sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>
> |> >        It certainly involves force against the living human being inside th
> |> >mother's womb.
> |> >        I know, I know, this particular living human being is not deserving
> |> >the protection of human rights.  In your opinion.
> |>
> |> It's not a human being with the connotations I believe you are implying.
>
>      The unborn child is a living member of the human species.  Mere human
> tissue is not a living member of the human species.  I have the proof.

"Human being" is a term that means "human" (noun) or "person".  You're using
human being as a noun phrase - the fetus is certainly a being that is human
(adj.), but it is not a human being in the usual sense of the term, so the
connotations associated with "human being" don't apply.

> |> >|>  Unless of course, you mean offending the delicate
> |> >|> sensibilities of the pro-lifers.
> |>
> |> >        As it happens, the sensibilities of the pro-lifers inside the mother
> |> >womb are pretty delicate, so I suppose this covers it...
> |>
> |> I didn't realize womb residents had sensibilities, or thoughts or emotions
> |> or a host of other personality traits. Could that be because they aren't
> |> persons? Naah, that would be self-evident, wouldn't it. :)
>
>      If reaction to stimuli is the criterion for sensation, then unborn
> children have sensations quite early in pregnancy.

No, it's not.  Sensation is "the power or process of receiving conscious
sense impressions through direct stimulation of the bodily organism or of
the sense organs".  Consciousness is one criterion.  Of course a fetus
reacts to stimuli.  So does a paramecium.  Big deal.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Date: 12 Sep 92 07:42:53 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <1992Sep05.081218.12140@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
|> In  <nyikos.715652202@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
|> > In <vvyyfw@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
|> >
|> > >nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
|> >
|> > >>In <1992Sep2.223616.17088@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU
|> >
|> > >>>In article <nyikos.715464590@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.e
|> > >>>(Peter Nyikos) writes:
|> >
|> > >>>}   ...but a fetus is not part of her body...
|> >
|> > >>>Just when you think you have things figured out.  Doggone it Peter,
|> > >>>where do you suppose those little buggers are?
|> >
|> > >>You know the answer as well as I do. That's not the issue.
|> >
|> > >[An inflammatory paragraph deleted.]
|> >
|> > >>>       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu
|> >
|> > >>Would you say you are a part of your hang gliding harness?
|> >
|> > >Is his hang gliding harness using his body?
|> >
|> > No. His body is using the hang gliding harness.  Can't you follow
|> > a simple analogy?
|> 
|> Let's see...  You're saying that if the hang glider was a person, it
|> would have the right to kill Galen if it wanted him out and that was
|> the only way to get him out?  I don't think the analogy holds, since
|> it's possible to just unbuckle some straps and get Galen out alive
|> and well without causing any trauma to the hang glider.  Did I miss
|> something?

	Yeah, and what if the hang glider did something to cause the guy to be
hooked up in it?  If the hang glider swooped down and grabbed the guy, for
instance (still assuming the hang glider is a person), then it seems to me that
the hang glider wouldn't have a right to just let him go in mid-air, would it?

Steve
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35444 alt.abortion.inequity:3579
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 7 Sep 92 20:07:17 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes to john stevens:
[...]
-> Excuse me if I think this shows total disregard for
-> women's rights.

by "disregard" do you mean in the same sense that
someone who would restrict a woman's right to abort is
disregarding women's rights?

is a person who would punish/imprison women who abort
disregarding women's rights?

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: regrets: abortion completed/denied  (long)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 19:45:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

I just wanted to highlight the most interesting part of this posting
for those who might not have the patience to go though it at length.
It indicates that "post-abortion trauma" is a myth, and that the 
consequences or a forced birth are grave both for the mother and
for her child.

kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes ...
>SOURCE:
>the American Journal of Psychiatry, Volume 148, Issue 5, May 1991.  

>	                                  RESULTS: Adverse sequelae
>	occur in a minority of women, and when such symptoms occur, they
>	usually seem to be the continuation of symptoms that appeared
>	before the abortion and are on the wane immediately after the
>	abortion.
>	           Many women denied abortion show ongoing resentment that
>	may last for years, while children born when the abortion is
>	denied have numerous, broadly based difficulties in social, inter-
>	personal, and occupational functions that last at least into early
>	adulthood.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another gem -- this time from Peter Nyikos
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:09:00 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <nyikos.716331450@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
> 
> Do we have here another case of pregnancy being held in contempt?

Actually, I think we have another case of _you_ being held in contempt.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:25:59 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Chris
>Eric
>> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (No - No  Never) writes:
>  ^^^^^^

>> Listen, shithead: I personally know a woman who had an abortion
>> following a pregnancy which was the result of a rape. Try telling
>> her that wearing pants is 100% effective.

>I was a little taken aback by your response, Eric, but then I looked
>at the attribution line.  Talk about ikky-gross:  Kevin Welch is back!
>
>So Kevin, have you harassed any pregnant women lately? >:-|

I've never harassed a woman for being pregnant.  I usually congratulate them
for achieving it.

>Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>

kcw



--
Kevin Welch						  POLITICALLY INCORRECT
University of Pennsylvania				  FREE MINDS
kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu				  FREE MARKETS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++FREE SOCIETY
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 15:23:19 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Distribution: usa


eb>In article <1992Sep10.010130.6534@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
w>In article <1992Sep9.125404.202724@uctvax.uct.ac.za> wnljam01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:

w>That is so true!  It is a question of whose morals will be legislated. 
w>Pro-aborts want their morals legislated; making murder nice and antiseptic -
w>removing all feelings of guilt.

eb>Gordon, do you want to legislate your morals?  Catwoman, do you want
eb>to legislate yours?  Um, who's the third pro-abortion person on t.a.?

That would be me.  I kind of think the world would be a better place 
if more people lived by my morality (I'd actually call them ethics, 
but why pick nicks), but I would never dream of legislating them.  If
I can't convince enough people to live the King Way, then force seems
like a real poor substitute. 

eb>Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley

Dan King
 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36476 alt.abortion.inequity:3718
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Another gem -- this time from Peter Nyikos
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:46:20 GMT

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
# nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
# #{Satire, but with a grain of truth: Now do you see why I have such a
# #bad case of womb envy?}
# 
# Right, Nyikos, it makes as much sense as envying soldiers because
# they get to wear such pretty uniforms while ignoring the dangers
# that they face.

So who's going to write the lyrics to `Pregnancy Hymn of the Republic?'

-- 
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: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: The use of fat black ass to describe Chaney
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 18:19:56 GMT

<1992Sep10.233318.3316@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) said:
>In article <29674@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>>Personally, I would never use fat black ass to describe an African
>>American.  I believe that Chaney is deserving of all the put downs and
>>contempt directed at him; nonetheless, I think the use of this
>>terminology is an inappropriate racial slur.
>
>And so Stephen J. Mess covers PatricKKK Harumphrey's tracks while
>trying to make himself look good by spreading "Chaney is no good"
>propaganda. 
>
>One problem: Why is it that this feeling is only shared among the
>pro-aborts? 

Heck, there's only three or four of us and we all have good taste.  Does
that explain it clear enough for you?


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 all.
-- 
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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36368 alt.abortion.inequity:3697