HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: The "abortion on demand" myth:  anti-choice scare tactics
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:02:33 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In  <1992Aug18.181217.12740@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.171437.28911@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >> And in this country, we do have virtual abortion-on-demand throughout
> >> the term of pregnancy.
>
> > This statement is not correct.  Perhaps you should "look here at the
> > original post".

(Nice of you to delete the part to which I was referring, while adding
a number of additional newsgroups.)

> In this country, we do have abortion on demand throughout the term
> of pregnancy. See the quote below.

We've all seen it many times, Doug.  An ignorant opinion is no less
ignorant for being published, and your repeating it ad nauseum does
not make your claims any more valid.  My challenge in my previous
post, which you deleted, was:

   Given that there are only 3 doctors in the US that perform 3rd trimester
   abortions, and then only for medical reasons, it seems obvious to any
   reasonably intelligent observer that "abortion-on-demand throughout
   the term of pregnancy" is simply a myth.

   For you to claim otherwise, you'd have to document for us some
   third-trimester abortions for other than medical reasons.

So, Doug, do you want to address the *reality* of the situation, or are
you going to implicitly admit that you're wrong by continuing your scare
tactics?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Other Flip-Floppers on abortion
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:44:39 GMT

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
>
>It appears that the radical pro-abortionists in the Democratic party 
>have forced Mr. Clinton to embrace a minority-held position. 
>
>
>Doug Holtsinger
>
You're going to have to prove that pro-choice position is a "minority-held"
position.  I wish you would stop lying about that.  

Jennifer


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 03:30:37 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  <1992Aug20.214245.15306@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.171437.28911@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>
> > Given that there are only 3 doctors in the US that perform 3rd trimester
> > abortions, and then only for medical reasons, it seems obvious to any
> > reasonably intelligent observer that "abortion-on-demand throughout
> > the term of pregnancy" is simply a myth.
>
> I'm still waiting for Mr. Margolis or Mr. Anderson to tell me where
> 60 minutes got these so-called facts.

The same information has been posted on the net previously.  I have no
reason to doubt it.  If you do, feel free to contact 60 Minutes and inquire
as to their sources.

> And these so-called facts do nothing to refute the evidence showing
> that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion on demand throughout the term
> of pregnancy.

Wrong, Doug - there *is* no evidence showing that Roe v. Wade is
"unrestricted abortion on demand throughout the term of pregnancy."
What there is is paranoid speculation - anti-abortionists are using scare
tactics, trying to raise the specter of women in their ninth month of
pregnancy obtaining abortions because they want to fit into a swimsuit.
The fact is, this is simply a myth.  As I proved above, this *does* not,
and *can* not, happen.

I note that you cut out:
> > For you to claim otherwise, you'd have to document for us some
> > third-trimester abortions for other than medical reasons.

If you can't, then please explain to me why I should waste my time
disproving your speculation that you admit has no basis in reality.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Polls show Republicans favor abortion rights
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:00:53 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Aug18.002629.19010@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
># dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
># >bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
># >> The polls show that the majority of Republicans favor choice.  
># 
># - Epitaph for John Campbell, pro-abort Republican US Senatorial
># Candidate in California, who got a new asshole burned for him by
># pro-life Republican candidate Bruce Herschensohn, in the June primary. 
>
>Idiot.  If Herschensohn had lost by the margin he won by, he would
>have demanded and got a recount.  I seem to recall the margin being
>something like 3000 votes.

Doesn't sound like Campbell was in the majority. He lost nonetheless.

>Perhaps you were thinking about how Big Bill Dannemeyer was taken to
>the woodshed by Republican voters, who got like 17% of the vote in a
>three-way race in which he came in second. But then, Dannemeyer's a
>mutant pro-lifer from beyond the stars, and Seymour's been pro-choice
>for, what? -- four, five years now?

Dannemeyer was one. Would you care to tell all of talk.abortion about
how almost all of Pete Wilson's hand-picked pro-abortion Republican
candidates, lost to pro-lifers in the primaries? 

Where was THEIR pro-choice majority? Flocking to Florida, I bet..

===============================================================================
			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...
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Putting out the fire, sort of
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:03:02 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = Patrick Humphrey writes:

>> Therefore, to y'all who might
>> have been upset at that screw-up on my part, I apologize.  To Steve, though,
>> I will NOT apologize -- save on one condition:  he comes down here to 
>> receive it in person.  If he wants my respect, he'll have to put forth some
>> effort to earn it.

>I didn't ask for an apology from you, I said that I thought you should
>apologize to Mr. Chaney.  I still believe that. 

Patrick probably wasn't speaking to *you*, the current leader in
net.bullshit; and since you wouldn't recognize an apology if it bit you in
the ass, who cares what you think Chaney deserves?


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Who was "Dennis Hall"?
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:53:18 GMT

In article <Bt98Ev.Bp9@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
}In article <1684554D.HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Patrick Humphrey) writes:
}>In article <1992Aug16.003415.17098@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
} 
}>>                Shhh, Scott.
}>>                We know you're posting as Pat Harumphrey because
}>>                you both lie the same way.
} 
}>Come on, Steve.  Let's see just how much of a boy you are.  March your
}>fat black ass down here and tell me I'm a liar, to my face.  (I hope
}     ^^^^^
}Excuse me, Patrick.  I don't see that Steve's skin color is of any relevance.  
}I find the phraseology here repugnant.

After carefully checking to see which way the wind is blowing, I have to
agree with Scott.  Patrick, while I am sure you have your reasons and
explainations, I don't think an unconditional apology to Steve would be
out of order.  I doubt I like Chaney (or whoever he this week) any more
than anyone else but I think "ignorant scum-sucking bottom feeder" 
describes him as well as "<racial comment> ignorant scum-sucking bottom
feeder."  

 
--
       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: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I tend to be Pro-Choice because: 2
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:54:44 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = (Linda Heather Springer) writes:

>> [...]
>>> Also, the Jews were under different rules than Christians.  They were  
>>> allowed to have slaves and kill other nations.  God expects more of  
>>> Christians. Please se my previous article *Re: I tend...*.

>> Dear deluded Bible twinkie: if your "god" is this much of a shithead, who
>> needs him anyway?

>Ms. Springer was responding to a pro-abortionist who raised the  
>subject of the interpretation of the bible.  

I don't give a shit.  She still sounds like a religious bigot.

>If you pro-abortionists don't want to hear about the subject, then I 
>suggest that you stop bringing it up.

If you pro-forced-birth religious fanatics would quit cramming your
superstition down everyone's throat (*esp.* re: abortion), THEN we'll
quit bringing it up.

And you can "suggest" all you want; you have zero credibility, a paucity
of honesty, and the lamest, illogical debating style since David "Mommy's
Yummy" Rasmussen.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: L. L. Bean allows anti-choice candidate to use company property
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:05:31 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

smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
-> Linda Loraine Bean, a candidate for Congress from
-> the First District in Maine, was allowed to use the
-> premises of L. L. Bean, the boot stitching factory
-> to be precise, to film a television commercial for
-> her campaign.  She is adamantly anti-choice, as well
-> as anti-gay rights legislation and anti-gun control.
-> I verified all of this by calling L. L. Bean, (800)
-> 341-4341, myself.  I also informed them that I would
-> not longer purchase their products.  I urge all
-> pro-choice persons to do the same.

i called bean's this morning at 8:15am edt. the sales
person who answered assured me that a customer service
representative would call me right back and explain the
entire matter. it's now about 4:00pm edt. no one has
called yet.

(the sales representative did comment that they were
receiving more calls on this than they receive for xmas
orders.)

i'll post the "official explanation" if i ever hear it.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:37:31 GMT

In <1992Aug17.160630.23938@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:


>   The figure on third trimester abortions is that they represent
>less than one in one thousand abortions performed in America. 

Where do you get this information?  When last I looked at the FAQ,
its breakdown only went as high as "over 21 weeks".

> It
>is also a fact that practically ALL of them are medically needed.

This would be news to me! What's your source of information?????

>To introduce an aspect of abortion that represents such numerical
>insignificance is deliberate misrepresentation. 

"Third trimester" is an anachronism which even Justice Blackmun is
showing signs of backing away from.  Ever since Webster v. Repro., 
the relevant thing
is abortions of quite possibly viable fetuses, and that's what I 
keep seeing talk of on talk.abortion.  

Now, the FAQ says roughly 0.8% of all abortions in 1985 were past
the 21st week, which fits the above description.  Given shifts
from one year to the next, we can conclude that there are between
12,000 and 15,000 of these per year.  If that many gays died each
year as a result of gay-bashing, can anyone here imagine the
reprecussions?

> It suggests some
>notions that are not true.  The first is that these abortions are
>sigificant in number. 

Even if you go by the 3rd trimester figure, you get "less than
1,600 per year" [How much less?  I'd really like to know!]
and even that number of dead due to gay-bashing would not be
considered insignificant.  And if you said what you say below
about 1,600 deaths per year due to gay-bashing, let alone
12,000 to 15,000, I'd hate to see how badly you get bashed in return.

> And it also implies that the anti-abortion
>zealots who raise this question object to the extreme situations,
>and not ALL abortions in general. 

By this line of reasoning, abortion-condoning zealots who compare 
zygotes to acorns, objecting to (as yet nonexistent) laws against 
abortion one day after conception, object only to this extreme
situation, and not against ALL laws prohibiting abortions at later
stages. 

> This trird trimester crap does
>not have anything to do with a woman's right to choose. 

Tell that to Justice Blackmun, who conjured it up in the first place.

 Maybe we
>can convince the anti-abortion zealots that this "issue" is phony
>and completely ineffective.  By constantly waging this "conflict"
>they are insulting the intelligence of everyone they address.  It
>should be obvious by what is happening in the Republican National
>Convention, that even the right in this country is not buying the
>fundamentalist crap anymore.  The right in this country is slowly
>becoming less reactionary, and more principled.  For this reason,
>the third trimester "issue" won't work even on Republicans.  Yes,
>folks.  There IS light at the end of the tunnel!

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Risks for Women
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 15:22:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.222407.29250@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <5733@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> 
>tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

>> OK, Doug, then answer me this.  What sort of risk are you comfortable with
>> inflicting on the woman?

>I'm not interested in inflicting a risk on anyone.  Every person who
>engages in sexual intercourse increases their risk of contracting a
>sexually-transmitted disease.  An ectopic (tubal) pregnancy can kill 
>a woman early in pregnancy.  Abortions can sometimes be fatal.  If 
>people don't want to take these risks, then they can avoid sexual 
>intercourse.  There are plenty of safer ways to please a partner. 

Ok, Doug, then answer *me* *this*.

If you could write a federal law controlling abortions, how likely
would death of the woman have to be before she'd be permitted one?

--
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:29:47 GMT

In article <Bt9q3K.As@rice.edu> 
patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

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

>> Come on, Steve.  Let's see just how much of a boy you are.  March your
>> fat black ass down here and tell me I'm a liar, to my face. 
>> 					- PatricKKK L. Humphrey  

> That's right.  I wrote it, and I apologized to anyone else who was offended
> by it.  The only apology you'll get from me is when you show enough backbone
> to come down here and get it in person.  If you're too chicken for that, hey
> -- you're the one that has to live with that...

I'm offended that you did not apologize to Steve Chaney for that remark.
Apologize and get it over with.  Nobody is going to hoot and holler over
it.  I will continue to ask you to apologize to Steve Chaney.  

>Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems


Doug Holtsinger


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: reh@wam.umd.edu (Huddleston)
Subject: Re: Not So Good Bumper Sticker
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 02:39:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.165129.18302@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <l8l0r8INNpd1@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> 
>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.  
>
>>Eric
>
>
>Doug Holtsinger
>


I just finished reading the Constitution and Ammendments, myself, and
I think the SC made a sound decision.  Maybe you'd care to elaborate on
which specific parts of the Constitution are "shaky grounds" for the 
position that living, breathing human beings are accountable primarily to
their own conscience -- and, more specifically, are NOT accountable to yours.

In areas where consideration for "the common welfare" is grounds for setting
social and legal accountabilities for individual action, perhaps you could
next argue how the right to of an individual woman to decide how and when to
bear a child defeats the common welfare of all individuals in this country.

While you can toss religion in there if you really have to (someone will,
eventually), I presume by your comments that you can base your arguments
on the contents of the Constitution, exclusively.

-- 
This posting is the result of years of American public school and television.
Scary thought, isn't it?
 
Richard Huddleston, reh@wam.umd.edu   NeXTSTEP is better: Boycott Microsoft.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: And Now, You're A Coatrack!! Was: without even being asked ....
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: Fri, 14 Aug 92 02:24:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.190754.27375@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.115640.6837@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>
>More nagging from the Keegan/Kaufman person posting as
>keegan@crd.ge.com... 

Gee, and it only took him 6 months to learn this!  Any day now he'll start 
including BearCode and Hanky Codes in his post...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="I want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:02:14 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug14.061504.2283@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
Forgach) wrote:
> 
> From article by bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt):
> > In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> > #
> > # It's not even half as much their sex drives as it is their
> > # desperate, mistaken, attempts to find love in a crazy, misguided world!!
> > # 
> > # And you know what??  If they'd let their pregnancies go to term, they'd
> > # have it.
> > 
> > This little gem was my favorite post of the last seven days.
> > 
> > Finally, world peace is at hand....
> 
> 
> Motherly love is the answer.

I think you should try to communicate this information to Saddam Hussein.

He might be motivated to use his position on the "throne of Iraq" more
wisely.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32416 alt.abortion.inequity:3151
From: serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Observations
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:31:39 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

I have just recently subscribed and begun reading these groups.  I have never
seen to sides take such reactionary and extremist positions on any subject. We
have the pro-choicers, who feel abortion is right and should be made available
whenever and wherever a woman wants it.  Then, the pro-lifers at the other
extreme who would eliminate the possibility of abortion for all circumstances.
Because of these extremist views I can safely say that I am neither pro-life or
pro-choice.  I will not support such extremist viewpoints. 

	I do not agree that a woman has a right to an abortion in the case
of consensual sex.  Men and women both must take responsibility for their 
actions.  If you are going to have sex you must take whatever precautions are
necessary to prevent pregnancy, however, you must also be willing to accept the
consequences if such precautions fail and a pregnancy occurs.  Abortion is NOT
a valid method of birth control.  If neither the man nor the woman has the
emotional or financial ability or desire to raise a child then one must take
the only alternative available, DON'T HAVE SEX!  Who gave us the right to
have sex regardless of the cost?  

	I do not agree that a woman should not be allowed to an abortion in
cases of rape, incest, or where the mothers life is in danger.  

'nuff said
Newsgroups: talk.abortion