HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Hey, Susan Garvin!
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 03:02:52 GMT


	Well, Steve Chaney's comments about Susan Garvin really take
the cake. Calling her a "feminazi" and insinuating that she likes to
burn bras proves one thing -- Steve Chaney is not a feminist at all,
but a feminist-basher, despite his self-proclaimed membership in the
"Feminists for Life".

	Calling feminists "bra burners" has been a classic way to
ridicule feminism, and "feminazi" is not a friendly term for a
feminist.

	Seen in this light, everybody's favorite Propeller Boy calling
himself a feminist makes about as much sense as a black person
admiring the Ku Klux Klan.

	I think he needs to be deborged. :-)

	"Propeller Boy" is a hint that he likes wearing propeller
beanies, which would not be surprising for a space cadet who has
called himself the "Insurgent" and the "Interceptor".

/Loren

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:46:53 GMT

> = (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> = (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:

>>>That's IT.  I'm getting a lobotomy and a bible so I can SAVE THE WORLD
>>>from the CRETINS that want women to be FREE TO CONTROL THEIR OWN
>>>BODIES!!!

>>Wow! <Clap> <Clap> <Clap> <Clap> Bravo! Bravo! Devastating speech!

>Oh joy.  Now we'll have TWO Steves posting irrational ravings.

Now, Ray; you've been in a pout ever since I blasted your suggestion that
religion is nothing BUT good for this country...a rather dopey position.

In fact, you'd never responded to me until then; I had to look at past postings
to see why I pissed you off so much.

>[misc. ravings deleted]

>>REALITY CHECK: This argument is not half as solid as it looks, 

>REALITY CHECK, Part II:  none or your arguments ever are.  And they
>don't even LOOK like much.

I have to ask, Ray: do you consider THIS boring crap of yours a good 
argument?  You look pedestrian even compared to Propellor Poot.

It's OK to get mad; just be a little more entertaining.
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 20:40:13 GMT

In <1992Sep3.172512.8313@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

>> = (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>> = (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>>There are lots of folks who decide not to repeat some of the dumb things
>>>Suzanne says.  Maybe you have more sense than we had hitherto dreamed of.

>>Don't be so hard on Suzanne. [This refers not so much to what you've just 
>>said as some of the things I've heard before.] 
>>Her heart is in the right place about
>>99% of the time.  I wish I could say the same for you.

>I can't say you're being honest, Nyikos. 

That's because you don't know that I've missed out on all the things
you accuse Suzanne of below, except possibly one.  So I am honest. [I did say
about 99 percent of the time, note.]

> Suzanne has provided us with
>innumerable lies, a callous disregard for world suffering, a boneheaded
>fanaticism for a Forgach-brand Catholicism that is even more stifling
>and repressive then the real thing (a tough trick to pull off), and a
>stated goal of a theocracy in the U.S.

>She has claimed she was part of an exorcism performed by a deacon that
>sent "clinic workers running into the streets in fear", she's claimed
>that pro-choice Christians aren't real Christians, and she ignores plain
>fact concerning the C.C.'s changing stance on abortion throughout
>history.

I'm really curious as to what you think this "plain fact" consists of.
There's been very little in the way of a changing stance that I know of.

>I have bunches more of her lies and hatred that I will gladly post. 

Or you can e-mail them to me, either way is OK.  But I presume Suzanne
innocent of each charge until shown guilty.

> If
>you haven't read them, then you may change your opinion of her.  If you
>have read them, then you're as dishonest as Suzanne is.

The one thing I have seen is her refusal to acknowledge that Brian McBean's
second cousin would have been better off aborted.  Having read the account
myself, I would think she was wrong in this, except that I have expressed
a few mild doubts that McBean's second cousin is really as badly off as
he is painted to be, and have not seen any rebuttals.  Let me ask point-
blank: has this second cousin been given heroin to control his pain? 
I have heard that heroin is a much more potent pain killer than even
morphine.  

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1992 03:57:44 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.715648091@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep03.171322.2864@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com
>
> >In  <nyikos.715471571@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Pete
> >> South Carolina
> >> requires abortionists to report to police all alleged incest cases
> >> brought to them.  Anyone want to guess how often this law is enforced?
>
> >Wild speculation is really your specialty, but I'll take a guess.
> >100% of the time.
>
> >What do I win?  :-)
>
> I don't think so.  I have spoken to an experienced trial lawyer who
> says he has seen many cases of rape brought to trial, but hardly ANY
> cases of incest.  Now this was a general statement, not connected with
> abortion, but it is certainly suggestive.  I intend to study this matter
> a lot in the next few months.

I've spoken with a seasoned prosecutor, who says that he's prosecuted
many rape cases, but *none* for treason.  Perhaps you should also study
whether the Republican wives are hushing all of them up.

Clue time:  you speak with a lawyer who says he sees more rape cases than
incest cases, and you conclude that this is suggestive that doctors who
perform abortions are suppressing information that they have about incest?
I think you need a reality-adjustment.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:17:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <1992Sep14.225518.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
}In article <d2wnh!=.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
(I deleted everything Ray wrote, in case you are trying to follow attributions)
}> mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes ...

}I gave my reasons for what *I* believe.  You incorrectly read into it that I
}expected everyone elso to accept it.  

}>>If it wasn't obvious from what I said, it should be illegal because it is
}>>...
 
}>>Yes it should be made illegal.  

Shame, shame, Ray.  You incorrectly failed to mention that people who are
above the law would be specifically excluded from this acceptance...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: darkie@phoenix.oulu.fi (Tapio Erola)
Subject: Re: Pro-Life? (was Re: Hypocrites?)
Organization: University of Oulu, Finland
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 10:44:05 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> No. Killing for sex is not generally legal, and that's good enough
> justification for banning abortion as birth control.
> 
> Banning abortion for rape & incest is justified because no victim, to date,
> has a right to kill someone else to relieve their suffering - unless that
> someone else were the attacker. The z/e/f does not qualify as the attacker
> - the rapist does.
Yes, you have point, but z/e/f qualifies as damage done in rape. 
If alleyway mugger cuts you with knife, don't you heal the wound?
Remember: Victim doesn't have change to use contraceptives nor
just say no.
Please, no flames to my e-mail adress.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Keywords: National Abortion Federation = Pro-abortion??  
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Sep 92 23:17:25 GMT

In <8yxyyyd@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

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

>>I didn't expect you to rely on what appears to be a pro-abortion 
>>organization for your claims.  

>Ummmmm, you're demanding "unbiased" (according to _your_ criteria)
>sources now?

>Why don't we see these same demands when Nyikos quotes clearly
>ANTI-abortion organizations?

You see them all the time, from Larry Margolis, Susan Garvin,
Adrienne Regard.....  As to why Doug does not make the same
demands, that would be an example of excessive redundancy.

On top of which, we pro-lifers are so outnumbered, we never get
very far down our list of priorities in talk.abortion.

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Keywords: abortion, rape, sexual battery
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 00:37:12 GMT

In <1992Sep3.211916.20669@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:

>In <nyikos.715387086@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>In my short time with talk.abortion, I have already seen how some
>>pro-choicers are ready to label someone a misogynist or woman-hater
>>simply because said person fits the "pro-life" label better than the
>>"pro-choice" label.  One very clear example of that came in my e-mail
>>yesterday, accusing me of hating women purely and simply because I 
>>"would keep a woman pregnant against her will" [No ifs, ands, or buts
>>appended, which is typical of people of this mentality.]

>>	These people are barking up the wrong tree.  If they would only
>>open their eyes a bit, they would see evidence of misogyny from some 
>>of the very people they defend as caring about women.  Here is a 
>>particularly blatant case, taken from the May, 1988 _Miami Herald_,
>>for which I am indebted to Charles Wysong.

>  (Tragic article deleted).

>    Peter, why is it so hard for you to understand that yes, it is WRONG
>for someone to perform an abortion on a woman against her will (because
>it is interfering with her reproductive independence), but it is ALSO
>wrong for someone to refuse to allow a woman to get an abortion IF AN
>ABORTION IS HER DECISION (for the same reason)? You seem to be an
>intelligent man--why do you struggle so hard with this concept?

>                                                               MP

Because there is often also another human being involved, the one that
is killed if the abortion is a "successful" one.

Peter Nyikos

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35721 alt.flame:12658
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:23:07 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <Lo1iqB17w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
>Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
>Date: 3 Sep 92 13:01:08 GMT

>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>> <1992Aug27.233041.22694@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney
>> >|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              
>> 
>> Does this mean that the NRLC is dedicated to achieving civil rights for 
>> the unborn?  Or is this your own idea?
>> 
>> Please tell me how you plan on providing a fetus with a voting stylus.  Or
>> were you planning on restricting a fetus's right to vote?

This is pretty stupid.   Like 10-year-olds vote.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - D Adams
  - Patrick Taylor
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    alternately, exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Good News from a Premie!
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:37:58 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article <Bu1Dxw.ABu.2@cs.cmu.edu>, by garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):
>> 
>> While I'm glad that the child survived, and hope that she truly
>> has no ill effects, I feel that I do need to point out that it
>> is possible to misjudge gestational age by up to four weeks.
>> (That was the justification for allowing mandatory viability
>> testing at 20 weeks in the Webster decision.)
> 
>While teams of medical doctors working on a premie in the neonatal intensive
>care ward could ~conceivably~ get a child's gestational age wrong, they sure
>as heck will get her weight right.  

>** 15 ounces **    As human and thriving as the rest of us.

Well, according to the neonatoligist that checked out my new son, the
child's gestational age was just shy of 26 weeks.  How does he know?  He is
good frinds with the head of the team in Florida that saved this child.
Don't believe me?  Call Edward Hospital in Naperville, IL, and ask for Dr.
Hernandez.  He'll give you the whole scoop.

Suzanne is correct that the lungs were underdeveloped.  And a specialized
treatment was used (it involved some form of solution being put into the
lungs).

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams   "Space-age cybernomad"     Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another gem -- this time from Peter Nyikos
Date: 13 Sep 92 15:55:32 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <nyikos.716331085@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <BuCypu.MK3.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
> >It makes one wonder why FFL refers to pregnancy as a disability in
> >their tract against euthanasia, doesn't it?
>
> I haven't seen the tract.  I'd like to see the context.

Since you've indicated that you won't believe anything coming from
pro-choicers, why not contact FFL yourself.

> >There is, of course, no logic in the above quote.  Recognizing
> >the "discomforts" of pregnancy also recognizes the strength of
> >the women who endure them.
>
> >I was not holding pregnancy in contempt, by the way.  I was
> >noting that it is not the bed of roses that you believe.
>
> Even roses have thorns, and I am not denying the thorns.
>
> >#{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.
>
> There you go again.  Do you still maintain that you do not hold
> pregnancy in contempt?

Do you hold roses in contempt?  :-)

Why do you maintain that pointing out the dangers of an activity to
someone focusing only on the good parts is holding that activity in
contempt?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 02:53:34 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  <1992Sep5.025334.9878@zooid.guild.org>  Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
> LM> In  <1992Aug20.021010.16000@zooid.guild.org>  Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild
> LM> > writes:
> LM> >
> LM> > But I WOULD like to see the foetus recognised as a person,
>
> LM> And I'd like to see myself recognized as emperor of the world.
> LM> I mean, the fact that I'm not shouldn't make any difference, right?  :-)
>
> Unfortunately, you also killed half of my quote, in which I said that I wanted
> to see this recognition given ONLY after a method has been found to remove
> him/her from the mother without harming either.

That has no relevance to the fact that you want to recognize something as a
person that is not a person.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: The 91% Regret Rate
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: Sat, 12 Sep 92 11:06:50 GMT



Suzanne actually believes that a well-known pro-forcer can
simply dial up a few clinics and ask for the names and phones
numbers of former patients and receive that information.
I shouldn't be surprised, since she seems to be willing
to believe any fairy tale that fits her odd notions about
abortion and poor opinion of women in general.  On the
other hand, you have to wonder why she isn't complaining
about this alleged abuse of confidentiality as well if she
truly believes it happened.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Mr. Red Button Scenario
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:42:13 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
# gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
# |> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
# |> >	Gordon, you're a person (I hope).  Suppose I push a button which causes
# |> >you to be in my body.  Can I abort you?  Yes or no?
# |> 
# |> Sure.
#
# Oh, this is a jewel.  This might be .sig material.  Let me get this
# straight: if I do something which causes you to appear in my body I
# can kill you at will and you would have no legal recourse?  All this
# despite the fact that you neither requested nor granted permission for
# your body to be put inside mine?

What is it with you and this fascination with equating reproduction
with pushing a button, anyway?

What on earth every made you think this analogy made any sense
whatsoever?

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

``I pushed the fool button / My night went haywire'' --Jimmy Buffet
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 15:16:16 GMT

In <Bu46t6.A68@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715653015@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1992Sep3.180335.8977@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>
>>>> = (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>>>>   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
>>>>>may not be both."
>>>>>                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel
>>
>>>>Have you told that to the human being whom Chaney so endearingly
>>>>calls PatricKKK?
>>
>>>Geez, Petey, do the continual anti-Jewish remarks by Holtsinger and
>>>Chaney really pale in your mind next to the one mistake made by
>>>Patrick?
>>
>>Sorry, I haven't seen any of them.  I simply don't have the time
>>to read everything in talk.abortion.
>>
>>Peter Nyikos

>Of course you don't.  Isn't it funny how your newsreader "breaks down" at
>such convenient times, a la Forgach?

>(So, when are you going to start throwing your tantrum because I'm following
>up an article of yours?  You *did* post that threat in public, after all...:-)

I also said, a couple of days ago, "Consider it unsaid," in deference to
y'all's [your wife's and yours] condition.  Maybe that went over your head,
so I'll put it in plainer language: "I wish I hadn't said it.  The threat
no longer exists."

Note to non-Southerners: y'all may have heard the term " y'all " many
times, but lots of people don't know that " y'all's " is also used, though
a lot less frequently.  One of the first times I heard it was from a Texan
named Glenda, who was a grad student in Chicago where I was a postdoc,
and she said a lot of her fellow students just couldn't get over how
strange and funny it sounded to them, but she'd grown up with it and found
it perfectly natural.  Which it is.

Peter Nyikos, a transplanted Northerner

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Nyikos' amnesia
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Sep 92 21:57:25 GMT

In <1992Sep09.035609.23451@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.IBM.com> writes:

>In  <1992Sep08.032047.23921@watson.ibm.com>  Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>> In  <nyikos.715732551@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter
>> >
>> > Sorry, missed them all. On which thread should I have looked?
>>
>> On talk.abortion.  What the subject line was, I have no idea; it rarely
>> relates to what's being discussed.  But, wasn't it *you* that I was
>> responding to?  I could swear that it was you that objected to the
>> data from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, so I responded saying "Perhaps
>> you'll like one of these [sources] better".  Didn't you say that you
>> were looking in to them?

>I was right.  I gave you a number of unbiased sources, and you
>acknowledged seeing them:

>In <1992Aug27.191315.36800@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis
><margoli@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
># It's not clear that you're interested in learning, if you automatically
># dismiss facts because you don't like the source.  Perhaps you'll like
># one of these sources better.

>In  <nyikos.715300439@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>% Thank you.  I saved the info you listed below, although the first
>% table is extremely suspect, and there's nothing to go on.  But I will
>% study the rest of the info very carefully.

>How do you reconcile "missed them all" with "I will study [it] carefully" ???

Very, very easily.  I have not accessed the info since I saved it.  I've
been awfully busy as it is.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity