HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: 21 Dec 1992 08:16:33 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Dec19.052827.25350@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>Hmmph.  Sounds like the old line "women are weaker than men and must
>be cared for and protected by men."

Hmmph.  Sounds like you amuse yourself in the privacy of your own room
by making up arguments that you want to attack, rather than dealing with
the arguments your opponents have actually raised.

>Why can't some of you (meaning women in general) understand that it's
>not about responsibility, but RIGHTS.  And it isn't a myth, either.
>It happens so often it's nearly a cliche.


Because some of us know something about the current law.  And those who
do apparently don't include you, Ray.  Go read, educate yourself.  Then
get back with us.

Oh, by the way, your 'so often it's nearly a cliche' could use a little
evidence.  We'd all really love to see some information that would give
and idea on how big this problem really is.  Might motivate some of us
to do something about it.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: about chasing people off the net
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:32:09 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Dec31.054021.17306@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.044025.16556@watson.ibm.com>
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
>> My flame was justified -
>> the reason that Siren no longer posts is *not* because she was flamed off
>> the newsgroup.  Petey was wrong (as usual), and a fool (as usual) for
>> believing Chaney.
>
>That's irrelevant, you did mention that Siren is dead,

Which is true.

>and you flamed Mr. Nyikos for asking why she could not be contacted.

It was intended to give him pause, and to make him realize that we're
not just computer userids; there's real people out here that he's maligning.

>Keegan's accusation
>that I had unjustly flamed him could also be applied to your flame
>of Mr. Nyikos.

Nope, because I also included the Siren post showing that Chaney was wrong.
The death of one member was an aside.  I'm trying to clue in Dr. Giggles that
he should try to find out the truth before taking Chaney's word for *anything*,
if he wants to stop making a fool of himself.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A child's guide to lying with statistics
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: 1 Jan 93 01:00:16 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

Reverend, your stupidity act is becoming more convincing.

Obviously, I wasn't claiming to provide promised sources in that
quote.  I can verify everything that I said.  I already have
verified it in this forum, and you've replied to it.  

Maybe your therapist could explain why your regression may be
dangerous.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Garvin's attempts to tell only half the story
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:26:30 GMT

In <1992Dec23.013921.7465@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1992Dec21.003426.21330@rotag.mi.org> 
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>> Gee, seems Susie is perfectly willing to forgive someone who jokes, in 
>> alt.sex, about mass rape and doesn't apologize for it. I wonder if she would 
>> be as forgiving of someone who joked about something equally tasteless in 
>> alt.flame and DID apologize for making a mistake?

>But that would require consistency from Garvin.

And that's just what we love about you, Douglas, we know we can always
count on you to be consistent. :-)

REB

consistency, the bugaboo of small minds
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:53:08 GMT

>   = sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>>  = by mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson):
dh> = dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
dh> There are factual differences between a late-term fetus
dh> and a newborn infant, but I have not heard any arguments
dh> from pro-choicers which would give *moral* weight to these
dh> facts.  Thus I conclude that there is no moral difference
dh> between killing a newborn infant and killing a late-term fetus.

>> Doug, you've just asserted that there is no '*moral*
>> weight' involved in posing a possible threat to a woman's life.

> He has?!?  Where?  He's talking about the existence of a
> "moral difference between killing a newborn infant and killing
> a late-term fetus."  The interesting kernel of this debate is
> the fact that some might conclude that there is no such moral
> distinction, apart from the involvement of other persons.  Perhaps
> you'd be interested in addressing this.

Let's review:  What Doug Holtsinger has clearly stated is:
(S1) "there is no difference between a late-term fetus and an infant".

This is what the whole "pro-choicers must condone infanticide" theory is
*based* upon, and is the dispute at hand.  When called on this incredulous
assertion, he has wisely massaged (S1) into:
(S2) "there is no *moral* difference between killing a newborn infant 
     and killing a late-term fetus", and while there are some "factual 
     differences" (whatever that's supposed to mean), these "factual 
     differences" have no "moral weight".  
     (this is a much more reasonable statement, albiet highly debatable)

From which we can only conclude that either
o posing a threat to a woman's life & health does not constitute one of
  these "factual difference" between fetus' & infants, or
o posing a threat to a woman's life & health does have any "moral weight"

But now you have permuted (S1) even further (too far) by forming:
(S3) "apart from the involvement of other persons" (presumably a 
     pregnant women) "there is no *moral* difference between killing 
     a newborn infant and killing a late-term fetus"

As if when debating "the difference between a late-term fetus and an infant", 
or when debating "killing a newborn infant vs killing a late-term fetus", 
the role of a pregnant women is some kind of a side issue.  Yeah, sure, if 
we ignore or trivialize the woman, then perhaps there isn't much difference.
But so what?  Is this what you think should be done?

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:56:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.191949.27148@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:

> Zygote and fetus are medically correct terms.  

And 'gravida' is the medically correct term for a 
pregnant woman.  

> I know they don't fit your political agenda, but there
> it is.  

The only people with political agendas are those
who are inconsistent in their terminology.  You
should either stick to 'medically correct' terms,
or use the terms 'woman' and 'child'.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Date: 2 Jan 93 22:53:32 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@crd.ge.com
Organization: "T.S.A.K.C"

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes to darcy:
|>We all do, since James Keegan posts an example every time you claim the
|>following is a lie.
|>
|>>"Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
|>> himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
|>>                                   Susie Garvin
|>>                                   Sun, 18 Oct 92 20:37:06 GMT
|>>                                  
<1992Oct18.203706.21850@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
|>
|>This is true; you *have* been consistently criticized for exactly that.
|>That you've disclaimed all previous arguments in favor of restrictions
|>doesn't alter the fact that you *were* criticized for them at the time
|>you made them.
|>
|>(You also *appear* to be continuing to argue for restrictions; although
|>you claim that's not what you're doing, the fact remains that your
|>arguments are indistinguishable from those of someone who is in favor
|>of restrictions.)

it strikes me as strange that kebbie continues to deny
his arguments his arguments against women's right to
terminate a pregnancy while, at the same time, continuing
to post them.

i almost fell out of my chair when i read his proposal
that a consesus be reached before a woman could have an
abortion.

                                        
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Is Fire Bombing a Legitimate Form of Free Speach.
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: Tue, 29 Dec 92 17:59:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.052441.17244@nwnexus.WA.COM> pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe) writes:
>firebombin is a form of free speech
>if and only if flag burning is truely a form of speech.
>
	Clue time, I think.  Let's see if you can figure out the difference
between:
	- someome burning a flag (his own property) and endangering no one's
	life
	- someone firebombing a clinic (someone else's property) and 
	endangering the lives and safety of others
	Hint: it has something to do with not violating the basic rights of
other persons.
	I don't mean to be excessively sarcastic, but this is so glaringly,
absurdly obvious that I'm amazed you would even post something so silly.
It really helps to think things through before you write them down.  That's
one of the advantages of the written vs. the spoken word.

>chus
>pyotr
>
>-- 
>Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
>Next Months Panel Topic: Graft - boon or blessing?
>EOF
	Just what we need; a right-wing drieux wannabe.
The_Doge
ObQuote:	"Always forgive your enemies - nothing annoys them so much."
			- Oscar Wilde


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Petey Ny, check reality, try again
Keywords: risks, surgical procedure
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:07:10 GMT

In <1093@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:


>Abortion providers do have the same responsibility to provide
>information to their patients as other doctors do, Mark.  The
>court cases that PHoney cites don't have anything to do with
>informed consent in medical terms - they have to do with a
>stae-written script detailing the abortion procedure, fetal
>development, possible complications, and other things.  These 
>state speeches are designed to discourage abortion, not to 
>inform anyone.

Nice try, Susan, but you are talking about Pennsylvania [what's
the weather been like in Pittsburgh?] and here in South Carolina
things are a little different [not just weather-wise].  You see,
the South Carolina bill that the ACLU head honcho helped defeat
only mandated that the woman be told about MEDICAL RISKS.  As to 
alternatives to abortion, fetal development, etc it would only 
have required that she be given the OPTION of viewing these materials
if she so desires.

But thanks for the info on Blackmun's dissent.  The old Shogun is 
still true to form.  Note how he equivocates below: his description
could refer either to the kind of bill that the "pro-choice" 
organizations helped defeat here, or one in which ALL the information
must be provided to the woman.

>If Nyikos thinks that quotes from dissents are relevant,
>then I'll give him one back.  (It includes part of the
>text from the Thornburgh decision, rather than the dissent.)
>The following is from Blackmun's dissent in PP v. Casey:

>"Thornburgh invalidated biased patient-counseling requirements
>virtually identical to the one at issue here.  What we said of
>those requirements fully applies in this case:
>-the listing of agencies in the printed Pennsylvania form presents
>serious problems;  it contains names of agencies that well may be
>out of step with the needs of the particular woman and thus places
>the physician inan awkward position and infringes upon his or her
>professional responsibilities.  Forcing the physician or counselor
>to present the materials and the list to the woman

This could refer to a closed folder or envelope which the woman can either
open or not open as she chooses.  Does it actually do so?

>-This type of compelled information is the antithesis of informed
>consent, id., at 764, and goes far beyond merely describing the 
>general subject matter relevant to the woman's decision.  -That
>the court does not, and surely would not, compel similar disclosure
>of every possible peril of necessary surgery or of simple
>vaccination, reveals the anti-abortion character of the statute
>and its real purpose. Ibid."

Heh.  It is MANDATED by law that we be informed about not only the
mortality rate from measles vaccine, but also the statistical risks
of major complications.  No such mandate exists for abortion here.

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 13:17:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.011244.12829@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1992Dec26.221418.12870@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
>(Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>}No misconceptions. 
>
>Er, you expressed some idea about what happens in hospitals, and 
>to what degree risk can be established, etc.  

I expressed no ABSOLUTE degrees, Galen. I only compared pregnancy to the 
burglar-in-the-night scenario. Unless you are trying to tell me that
the risk-predictability/controllability/safety of the burglar-in-the-night 
situation is comparable to the risk-predictability/controllability/safety 
of pregnancy, then I see no point in continuing this discussion.

> [diatribe about Darcy being the most evil force in the universe, deleted]

Try decaffeinated, Galen.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Can't we all just get along?
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 06:58:58 GMT

patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>
>Welcome to the wrangle, then -- you'll be a welcome change from such
>paragons of honesty as Holtsinger and Nyikos (and maybe even that Chaney
>guy, if he decides to come back).  I know there are at least a few pro-life
>folks with their heads set on straight out there, as I've encountered a few
>in person -- and we need more of them in this newsgroup.  

Ah, Chaney's another one I'd forgotten about.  I'll admit that there
are a few people on the pro-choice side who tend to be rather
belligerent in their opinions... but I haven't seen anyone from the
pro-choice side to match the utter cluelessness of Eric Gorr, or
Simon, or clifton, or Jeff Price.  Maybe I'm just blinded by a
pro-choice bias of opinion, but nothing in this rankles more with me
than the opinion that pregnancy is "punishment" for having sex.

>Anyway, the rest of y'all can go back to the regularly scheduled food fight.
>I'm going to be packing up and heading home for a well-deserved weekend in
>about 20 minutes...
>
>--PLH, glad he didn't get to watch the dismantling of the Aggies by those
>slugs from Notre Dame...

Ah, you're the one who signs himself PLH!  I didn't recognize you at
first.  I didn't think you were pro-life, though!  Or are you just
playing devil's advocate?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Yo Mamma...
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: Wed, 30 Dec 92 18:18:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.093734.12396@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>] In article <1992Dec29.052441.17244@nwnexus.WA.COM> pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe) writes:
>] >-- 
>] >Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
>] >Next Months Panel Topic: Graft - boon or blessing?
>] >EOF
>] 	Just what we need; a right-wing drieux wannabe.
>
>So what am I?
>
>Chopped Liver?
>
	Not hardly, by Dobbs!  Spam, at the very least ("bloody Vikings!").
Or maybe even a Whizzo Quality Assortment.  And certainly the most consistently
interesting SubGenius on the net (except maybe for Kibo, but he never hangs
out here).
>ciao
>drieux
>
wuggawuggawuggawugga
The_Doge
>
>-- 
>Modern Day Problems:
>
>This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
>You are just reading beyond the edge.
ObQuote:	"I may not know Reality, but I know what I like."
			-- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, _Divine Secrets of Sales_
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: More Bare-Fased Lies from the Reverend:
Date: 27 Dec 92 15:48:49 GMT
	<34633@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> <1992Dec26.222823.13078@rotag.mi.org>
Distribution: na
Organization: Irrelevant.  We've been assimilated.

In article <1992Dec26.222823.13078@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

  In article <34633@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
  >
  >I'll happily stand on my net reputation for lying versus yours.  

  I'll happily stand the validity of most "net reputations" against truth
  anytime.

...at least, until the reputation approaches the truth a little too closely.

  If there didn't exist people like our dear TSAKC who spend virtually all of 
  their posting time trying to fabricate people's "net reputations", then maybe
  "net reputations" would be a useful yardstick, Stephen. But with all the
  context-cutting, misdirection, obfuscation, and outright LYING that these
  folks do, do you really think that the resulting "net reputations" are worth 
  a damn? They are tainted by the obvious vendettas of the people that create 
  and sculpt them.

In other words, they're no good because YOU didn't create them -- classic
"do as I say, not as I do", it looks like to me.  At least you're
consistent, kebbin.  :-)

--PLH, people that think two wrongs make a right -- enjoy their antics while
they're around...

	
--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 2 Jan 93 05:18:02 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () recommends this course for a 
impoverished couple faced with an unwanted pregnancy:
|>>They should put it up for adoption and then be reimbursed the expenses
|>>of pregnancy and childbirth if the situation you proposed actually occurred.  
|mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
|>You're a truely cold hearted bastard aren't you?

Then vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
|By your definition, perhaps.  I'm sure you consider it cold-hearted to
|be more concerned with the needs of helpless, desperate children than the
|irresponsible, uncaring desires of their parents.

This is a spectacular case of Blame the Victim.  

Dad gets laid off from his auto mfg job because the company 
closed the factory in Michigan & reopened it in Mexico.  Mom 
can't make ends meet in her job as a waitress.  Dad can't find
work which uses his skills.  And how would
"vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu" solve this sad problem?  RIP THE KIDS
AWAY FROM THOSE HORRIBLE UNCARING PARENTS!  Do ANYTHING other
than use "vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu"'s tax dollars to support
those parasites!

And if "vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu" gets its way, and abortion is
made illegal, there'll be lots of people in pickles like that
for "vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu" to go all frothily rabid over.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Just saying no prevents teenage pregnancy the way 'Have a nice day' 
cures chronic depression."  -- Faye Wattleton
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Lets all play the Petey Game
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:18:20 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec23.191410.25280@nas.nasa.gov>
dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes: 

Do randomly generated Petey posts count or do they have to be the
genuine article?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Aaargh! What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
	<nyikos.725126664@milo.math.scarolina.edu> <c-v2qnm@rpi.edu>
	<1hat4uINNc5v@transfer.stratus.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:12:52 GMT


In article <1hat4uINNc5v@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:

 In article <c-v2qnm@rpi.edu>, keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
 > nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

 [deleted]

 > ->Aaargh! What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?
 > 
 > i'm afraid i've decided not to provide you with that
 > information.

 No, you've just decided to waste bandwidth riding his ass.  Frankly, I don't
 see how you're any big improvement.

I could say the same of you, seeing as how you posted that to soc.men and
soc.women...try editing the Newsgroups line once in a while, and if you
don't like it, you have an "n" key like everyone else here.  Use it.

--
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

                         You can rn, but you can't hide. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
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.
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 22:14:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.183600.13294@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

[Entire totally non-abortion related article deleted]

DODie, what the hell is this crap?
Why do you find it necessary to bring your religious arguments from
soc.singles to t.a? Neither of them is appropriate, but if that
concept is beyond the ability of your feeble mind to grasp, then at
least leave the dammed thing in the group where it started.
Do you practice being this stooopid, or were you born this way?

--
                  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,alt.politics.usa.constitution