HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Wednesday, 29 Jul 1992 09:27:17 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
 <1992Jul26.001305.18495@rotag.mi.org> <1992Jul26.071248.25612@cs.cmu.edu>
 <1992Jul26.190121.20155@rotag.mi.org>

In article <1992Jul26.190121.20155@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:
>In article <1992Jul26.071248.25612@cs.cmu.edu> Susan Garvin writes:

> [some self-righteous nonsense]

"Self righteous nonsense".  Darcy you've stooped to low levels
in the past but nothing like this.  This response proves once
and for all that you are completely devoid of integrity, empathy
and consideration.  Its a wonder you managed to survive into
adulthood without someone justifiably throttling you.

Your personal grudge against Ms. Garvin is apparent.  Your
attack on someone you know nothing about is appalling,
particularly since you insist in claiming to be an adult.

Grow up you pathetic little cretin or go back to alt.flame
where you can be receive the frequent abuse you so obviously
crave.


Linda
--
indeed no one is more arrogant toward women, more aggressive or
scornful, than the man who is anxious about his virility."
Simone DeBeauvoir, The Second Sex
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island (fo)
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:15:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.002231.170092@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>>> We need more pro-forcers like Holtsinger who are willing
>>> to doctor quotes that are easily checked, too.  What did
>>> you delete from the PP quote, DOD?  

>> I sent you the entire article via e-mail, and it clearly
>> shows that I did not "doctor" the quote. Do I get an apology
>> from you for slandering me?  

> You must be insane.  Do you really think that I would
> believe anything that you typed in, given your record
> on selective editing?  

But I didn't type in the quote. See, there's this command
in the vi editor which allows you to include other files
in the edited file. I took Kissling's original article which 
contained the Planned Parenthood quote and included it into 
my post. 

> To slander you, I would have had to have told an untruth
> about you.  I haven't.  

Right above, you asked "What did you delete from the PP quote?".
I felt slandered by that remark, but I doubt that you'll
apologize for it. You should at least admit that I did not
"doctor" the quote, but it doesn't seem likely that you'll 
do that either. 

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex,talk.bizarre
From: thawley@indetech.com (Todd Hawley)
Subject: Re: HeteroSexuality as a DeathKult
Summary: DeathKult, isn't that some thrash band? 
Organization: Independence Technologies, Inc. Fremont, CA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:27:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.115822.7033@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>] In article <1992Jul22.203528.17823@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>] >steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>] >
>] >{ its a logical follow on to the whole of the if you have sex,
>] >you are consenting to gestation, and hence since that has a higher
>] >level of potential for death, that one has in fact implied to
>] >the female one is Copulating With, that one is seeking to Kill Them.

Gee, all these big words, I wished I hadn't flunked science in jr. hi.

>Come Thee Unto the TrueLight, 
>And the Tan that will Never Fade!!!!

Hmmmmmnn, NO. I get sunburned too easily.

>ReNounce That WorldliNess and its WickedWantonWays
>with WhileyWomen And WonderBread!!!!!

Well, I've always eaten Roman Meal. As for wily women, that's why I read
some of these groups, so I can meet some. Hasn't happened yet, tho.

>Yee Have Surely Come Unto the ClearSightedNess!!!

Nope. I'm still NearSighted.

>Be yee Not Lead About By the Temptress
>as she Seeks to Play Miles Davis upon
>thy ThrobbingAndTumutuousTrumpetOfTruth!

Actually, Miles Davis is great, but I prefer Branford Marsalis & the Tonight
Show band. But I guess that would be a thread for one of the music groups.

>	JUST SAY NO!!!! TO HETRO!!!!!

Noooooo, JUST SAY NO TO DOS!!

>But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.

Oh you can, can you? gee, I can't. Explain it to me, drieux.

-th		"Burn BUSH in '92"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: If Men Could Get Pregnant. . .
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:20:59 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Jul26.053423.6189@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
> 
> I have heard the saying that if men could get pregnant, abortion would
> be a sacrement several times.  I was wondering if you people agree with
> that statement.  I believe that although many people believe abortion is
> murder and would still oppose abortion, the reason the right to choose is
> really in danger is because it is a women's issue.  Men control the 
> government and do not care enough about women's issues.  When a couple makes
> a mistake, and there is a pregnancy, it is the woman who must live with the
> baby inside her for nine months.  And while the man can run away and never
> be heard from again, the woman is stuck with the kid.  If abortion were a male
> issue, there would be a constitutional ammendment supporting the right to choose
> So all you Pro-Choicers out there, vote women into office (Pro-Choice ones)

I'm sure that this would be the case if men could get pregnant, but that
doesn't in any way change the ethics/moralities discussed...

But seriously, if men could get pregnant, then what sense would there be to
having the distinction between men and women?  And what would the penis
do when a baby tried to shove its way through from the inside? *cringe*

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: I rant a bit  (was Re: Abortion providers who oppose sterile conditions (was Re: Things)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 03:41:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.121547.27369@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.041427.5214@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
>(Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>}This little semantic detour from common sense also seems to jar pretty 
>}badly against some other statements you've made too:
>}
>}[re: laws prohibiting murder]
>}
>}"Folks who see in binary and feel that you are either 'fer it 
>} or again' it' are doubtless perplexed by such a feeling.  I 
>} confess to being somewhat apathetic about it, being neither 
>}                                                     ^^^^^^^
>} for or against.  I just don't much care." 
>} ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^	
>}			<1992Jul13.025936.21993@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>}
>}So apathy is okay when we're talking about murder laws, but not when we're
>}on the subject of abortion legislation, eh?
>
>In a word, yes.  Laws against murder don't have near the implications about
>personal freedom and government control that proposed abortion laws do.

That's true, they just deal in trivial little matters like the arbitrary
termination of BORN PEOPLE'S LIVES. Nothing worth legislating about, of 
course...

>Folks who see the world in "for or against" terms are no doubt puzzled 
>by statements made by those who do not.  

Your definition of "against" left no room between "against" and "for", 
Galen. I think you should either correct that definition, or admit that
these mythical "folks" you keep talking about include YOURSELF... 

>By the way, Kevin, I suppose I am one of your "extremists" regarding
>abortion, or at least the pro-choice position.  In that I have said that
>I prefer no (NO, or NADA, ZILCH, etc.) legislation regarding abortion yet 
>am willing to vote for the FOCA, how would you define me now?

Confused. Inconsistent. Irrational.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:13:05 GMT

In article <25pmvq#.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes ...
>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>Have you even once considered apologizing for your mistake?
>>
>>I have offered to do so, with reasonable conditions. 
>
>In other words, if enough people offer to kiss your butt you'll
>condescend to possibly offer an apology?

Get off it, Fischer, I'm not asking them to apologize to ME: I'm asking
them to apologize to everyone they have exposed to grossly inappropriate 
material.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: CNN CENSORS PRO-LIFE AD
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 21 Jul 92 13:59:05 CDT


In article <BrHvJ7.8zB@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
> In <22414@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
> 
> >                          Then again, the pro-lifers aren't going
> >to be honest about this, are they? No! They'll show bodies of miscarried
> >babies, a la Rev. Schenk in New York, and claim that they are aborted
> >fetuses. Wonderful credibility these people show. I wonder that anyone
> >falss for it at all.....
> 
>    Well, although I would never agree with such an action, it really doesn't
> make a difference does it? I mean, it is probably more tasteful to
> show the bloody miscarriage, rather than the dismemberment of suction,
> the desperation of salination, or more. 

Since you mention saline as a form of abortion, it should be noted that
that technique is no longer used.

>    You see, especially with the salination technique of abortion ,
> the baby is sometimes alive still when it is removed. So, now what do 
> we have? We have a BABY - a HUMAN - a LIVE BEING that is dying. Seems
> like a contradiction doesn't it? There have been many documented cases
> where they didn't fully kill the unborn child in the womb, and have had to
> leave it to die in the outer world, where supposedly by your feeble definitions
> it has status. Does this make sense? no, clearly not... Face it, your
> arguments are twisted and fragile, and when your definition of "human life"
> fails to work, you try and concoct another. Lovely tactics.

From the Minneapolis StarTribune, Sat Oct 26, 1991, p5B:

        ABORTION/ Doctor says saline method discarded
[...]
        Saline solution is no longer used as an abortion technique,
        said Dr. Mildred Hanson, who does abortions in Minneapolis.
        "Nobody uses saline anywhere," she said.  "It is accompanied
        by a risk of bleeding and also by a risk of some of that
        saline going into maternal circulation."
[...]
        Today, abortions in the first trimester usually are by
        suction aspiration.  Late-stage abortions are done by a
        surgical procedure.

        Only three or four doctors perform late-stage abortions,
        said Patricia Anderson with the National Abortion Federation.
        "There are a handful of third-trimester abortions that are
        done in instances of serious fetal anomalies or in the case
        of a pregnancy threatening a woman's life.  And only under
        those conditions," she said.
-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dear Operation Rescue
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:22:22 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Jul20.182203.12463@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>In article <Jul.18.05.16.54.1992.24300> clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
>>You'd better pray to whatever god(s) you believe in that you never
>>run across me at an OR rally.
>>-- 
>>Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618
>
>Why?  Whatcha gonna do Chris?

That depends. If the rally is at the clinic, he would call the cops
and the RESCUERS would get their asses beat. 

If he's at their meetings and he tries to cause trouble, that'll be
the last time we ever see Chris Long. 

I hope. 

 
===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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. 
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Tired of that subject line. "Pick the 'right' woman, John."
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 05:24:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.220431.11568@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.194056.26712@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>Why do you feel we *need* women, and they *need* us?  You are using a very
>>all-encompassing turn of phrase.  Perhaps you are not aware of gays and
>>lesbians who seem to get along fine without the other gender being an
>>active part of their lives?
>
>Exuse me.  Are you saying that gays and lesbians do not have mothers and
>fathers?

I think you've lost track of the argument. Look at the context of Toni's
original statement. Using parents in any analogous sense to Toni's point, and
my original reaction, would be incorrect.



>I thought not.  EVERYBODY needs their parents.  And EVERYBODY had both
>a father and a mother.
>
>>>I don't view 9 months of pregnancy as affecting the woman more than
>>>dying.
>>
>>Maybe you should wait until you've been pregnant, and faced death, before
>>you make that choice for someone else.
>
>I've faced death several times.  I've nutured and supported two different
>women through pregnancy.

This has nothing to do with Gordon's statement. You have not faced death
because you were pregnant. Your facing death does not support anything
contradicting Gordon's point.

Nurturing is not a parallel activity to birthing.



-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Highly Opinionated, Aging  and                      knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
            Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Fetal RTL defense, Part 2
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:58:22 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Jul23.175956.18589@ncsu.edu>  dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> Ms. Garvin has simply asserted that it's "sometimes necessary"
> to kill a late-term fetus to remove it from its mother,

And you stated the same thing.

> "necessary to avoid labor pains", or "necessary because it's
> less expensive than labor", ...
> Under similar circumstances, these reasons would also justify infanticide.

Perhaps you'd care to explain how killing a child would avoid labor pains
or be less expensive than labor (which the woman must have already gone
through)?  Do you perhaps know of a doctor that gives a rebate if you
kill the kid?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- a kinder, gentler t.a poster)
Subject: Re: PP executive says "personhood...begins a month after birth"
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force, Washington, D.C.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:29:32 GMT

What: <1992Jul23.222142.8174@ncsu.edu>
Who:  dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)

>>   = Jay T Stein

[Doug: claims Jay enjoys "promoting...that abortion is a religious issue"]
[Jay: "I have never made any such claim."  Asks Doug to support or retract]
[Doug: notes Jay's references to religious abortion protesters]

>> Yes - I'm saying it's a religious issue for the anti abortion protesters.
>> Which falls right in line with my observation (and gripe) that the pro-life
>> movement seems to have strong religious connections.
>
>In the second sentence, you insinuate that no pro-lifer can hold
>non-religious views on abortion.

Doug, Doug, Doug.  That conclusion does not follow from what I said.
I mentioned a correlation, I did not say that the correlation was +1.
In fact, I implicitly said that it is not.

>> I disagree with that statement [that personhood begins at birth+1 month].
>See, that wasn't too hard to say. 

No, but what purpose did it serve?

>OK, let's update the score-card:

>        Pro-choicer Feldt's remark that        Pro-choicer Feldt's remark
>       "personhood begins...a month after      that her logic is based upon
>        birth"                                 a religious perspective
>        ---------------------------------      ---------------------------
>
>Stein   "I disagree with that statement"       Religious beliefs make for
>                                               bad legislation
>
>We agree for once.

That's fine and dandy, but how about making your scorecard more complete -
for example, by noting that you made false claims about me and in fact
continue to misrepresent my position wrt religion?

>> I would really appreciate a retraction.
>
>For what?

For starters, you can retract the claim that I said that no pro-lifer can
be non-religious. Then you can retract your claim that I'm making abortion
a religious issue, or else fully qualify it by admitting that what I *really*
said was that am uncomfortable percentage of pro-lifers seem to have mostly
religious motivations.

And for extra credit, you can explore the reasons why war terminology
seems to be so common in pro-life sentiment  (war, weapons, tactics,
generals...).
--
     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29705 alt.birthright:192 alt.abortion.inequity:2791
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Hypocrites?
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:35:46 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Jul30.191305.21907@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <adams.712521565@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>> What the "Pro-Life" people want is an end to abortion.  Period.  Therefore,
>> the proper appelation would well be "anti-abortion." 
>
>Not necessarily. Many of the pro-life people also oppose euthanasia
>and the use of anencephalic infants as organ donor sources. 
>Therefore, the "proper appelation" is pro-life, not anti-abortion.
	In fact, unless they are opposed to *all* forms of taking human life,
including capital punishment and warfare (as the Catholic Church is, at least
officially), they're still not honestly "pro-life".  Your definition is far
too narrow to be meaningful, since it allows one to still favor State-
enforced killing of human beings while claiming to be "pro-life".
	Not that it matters; people will use whatever labels they prefer.
>
>>Steve Adams
>
>
>Doug Holtsinger
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

>


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Beware the DickSizeWars!!!!
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:38:10 GMT

bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>> Paul Klipsch himself, an audio god you are not worthy to cringe before,
>> often said that what this country needs is a good 5-watt amplifier!!!!

> For a good speaker, and audible tones, I'll buy that. Unfortunately,
> the amp raters always choose to emphasize power over quality, so to
> get a really good THD at 5W, you need a 50W, or even a 100W rated amp.

>>>  TechnoToyJunkies, these days, as even stereo-nerds are lost with the
>>>  advent of ComputerControlledWhatJaMaCallItJunkieHEavenToys.

>> As if you could impress your girlfriend with your sorry excuse of a
>> department store "hi-fi" console.

> All depends what you want, these days. I was talking about the full-range,
> audio-video center. (Mine's bigger than yours! Humphh! :)

>> Just as soon as I get home, I'm firing up my baby Adcom and breaking
>> every window in the house with Jongen's Symphonie Concertante for
>> Organ & Orchestra.  That'll show ya!!!!

> Try playing Tchaikovski's 1812 overture, that Adcom should do it justice.

Jeez, I can't believe it; I've just been hoodwinked into confessing that I
don't own and operate the One True Stereo System:  Dynaco tube amplifiers,
Klipsch corner speakers and an AR turntable!  My reputation as a True Believer
is in tatters!

As for the 1812 Overture, even Tchaikovsky himself hated that piece!

-- 
Chris Lyman -  a personal        /   "I belong to no organized
opinion for every occasion       /   political party.  I am a
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov    /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: FUNNY PP
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, 24 Jul 92 22:02:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.171203.13905@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (
regory S Clausen) writes:
>"An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.  It is dangero
s
>to your life and health.  It may make you sterile so that when you want 

>child you cannot have it."
>
>Planned Parenthood pamphlet published in 1965.
>

Which part was funny to you, Clausen?  

I haven't seen anyone deny that Planned Parenthood changed
its position on abortion.  I've been called a liar by
pro-force idiots who hate to think that the very organization,
which they spend so much time denigrating used to share 
their position on abortion.  The Roman Catholic Church
has waffled a bit on their position as well. 

I'll remind Clause, since he doesn't seem bright enough to
realize it on his own, that abortion was illegal in 1965.
The second two statements were all too true then.  Times
have changed since.  Some of us have even noticed.

Susan




Newsgroups: talk.abortion