HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Victory is at hand for Pro-Choicers
Keywords: Quotes from my man P.J.
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 17:55:56 GMT


In article <1ddlrsINNhq4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
 
>Well, all I know about American civics comes from P.J. O'Rourke's book,
>"Parliament of Whores", so my understanding is probably significantly out
>of whack :-)
 
Not at all.  After reading P.J.'s book, you probably know more about
U.S. civics than most Americans.  I had my son read my copy  and he 
has been giving his U.S. Civics teacher fits.  "Parliament of Whores"
should become required reading in High School.
 
>Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
>                               when you make us free your way"
>                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
 
Dan King
 
"The three branches of government number considerably more than three and are 
not, in any sense, "branches" since that would imply that there is something
they are all attached to besides self-aggrandizement and our pocketbooks.  I
never determined how many sections there really are to the federal system. It
probably can't be done.  Government is not a machine with parts; it's an
organism.  When does an intestine quit being an intestine and start becoming
as asshole?"
"The members of Congress are busier going to and fro in the earth than I had
expected.  But the president, on close inspection, seems slightly unemployed.
For nearly two generations, since the middle of the Great Depression, we've
been hearing that to be president of the United States is almost more of a
job than one man can handle.  Yet consider some of the men who've held this
job, and tell me how true this could be."
  --P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: The battle is won. So long for now.
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 08:15:33 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14l 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 <1992Nov5.005439.26336@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
>
>I think that everyone deserves a vacation now and then.

I've always thought you were a wise woman.  The time is now.

I'll be back in a week; if anyone wants a response from me, please email
me a copy of the post.  (If Peter finally apologises to Adrienne, please
email me a copy!!)

Cheers,
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: BECKY BELL'S AUTOPSY AND COMMENTARY
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:22:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.233030.668@Cadence.COM>, bruceg@Cadence.COM (Bruce Gustifson) writes:
> In article <BwpCvz.Msv.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> >  A bunch of bad things about another human being.
> >  And some guy writes a bunch of bad things about her.
> >Susan
> 
>   Hey, you knuckleheads, why is it that you have to
> battle it out pubicly? Can't you do this by e-mail?
> 
> 
> P.S. - Can you send a letter bomb via e-mail?

Duh.  Gee.  Could it be that this is a computer news
forum and this is a talk group in that forum?

Duh again.

Knuckleheads?  Pot, kettle, and all that.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yeah! Slick Willie Won! Yeah!
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 8 Nov 92 12:47:19 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
[...]
>All you Anti-Lifer's ( I use this wording because I have seen pro-lifers called
> anti-choicer's so turn-abouts fair play) think (and are probably correct in
> that you feel Clinton will do alot to keep abortion legal and secure a woman's
> right to kill (I could have said choose but since ya'll say we want to take 
> away her choice I'll say you want to take away the baby's life).

Content aside...  How can anyone see what you're trying to see here, Jeff?
Your parentheses are all screwed up:  
  
  "All you Anti-Lifer's () think (()."

Your statement was never completed, and you left one opening bracket
without closing it.  I really don't think it was your intention to
say "All you Anti-Lifer's think," but that's the best translation I
can make out.

Sorry for nit-picking (but I love to use parentheses (or brackets (if
you'd rather call them that (doesn't matter (I know this is not the
grammatically (is that a proper spelling of the word (how would I know?)?)
correct usage of parentheses (but at least people can decipher them
(if they try hard enough)), but it's how I like to use'm) to me)))
(one more, just for fun! (WHEW!)) and I hate to see other people (like
you) abuse them), it just looked as though you needed some help.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom)
Subject: Re: NBC News Blackout on Black Senatorial Candidate
Keywords: slavery, pro-life
Organization: The Lab Rats
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:19:22 GMT

In article <BxDwJ3.71z@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu> akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:

}As someone else has already pointed out, there were at least two:
}Alan Keyes in Maryland and Carol Moseley Braun in Illinois.  If NBC
}did indeed fail to mention any Black candidates for U.S. Senate, it
}was a grievous fault; but Mr. Nyikos cannot plausibly claim that the
}oversight was due to Keyes' pro-life views, because Braun is decidedly
}pro-choice.

make that at least three. Richard Benjamin Boddie, the Libertarian
candidate for the two year senate seat in california, is another.
but we know why NBC chose to ignore him.

then again, i also liked the way they made a point of mentioning that
for the first time in history there were TWO women running for the
senate in california, when there were actually three--Barbara Boxer,
Diane Feinstein, and June Genis. guess who they didn't think was worth
mentioning :-(
-- 
tom@udel.edu                                        ...!{gateway}!udel!tom
tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu           UDel: School of Life and Health Sciences

"Themes were useless; Destiny was here, and the foot pedals were bleeding."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: ATUI: Abortion and the Law
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 7 Nov 92 23:29:23 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

Abortion and the Law

     It is my opinion that legal restrictions of abortion without
infringement upon the basic rights of Canadians is impossible.  In
Canada, the first abortion law strictly prohibited the act in any
case at all.  Likely because of the unacceptability of this law
with respect to the women's rights movement surfacing in the sixties,
a new law was proposed by Parliament in 1969.  The law deemed abortion
legal only under the following condition:  A written certificate from
a Therapeutic Abortion Committee stating that continuation of the 
woman's pregnancy would endanger her life or health.  The abortion
had to be done by a medical doctor in a hospital.  The committee,
or TAC, would consist of three doctors, none of whom would take
part in the operation.  Hospitals were not required to have a TAC,
so it was often difficult for a woman to find a legal place to abort
her fetus.  The TAC also took a considerable amount of time in their
decisions, and often pregnancy advanced far enough to cause considerably
greater abortive risk than was to start with.  The term "health" was 
not defined, and different TAC's used different working definitions
(Dunsmuir, 1990).
     In January of 1988, the law was abolished because it was deemed to
be in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The law forced
women by criminal sanction to carry a fetus to term unless criteria
unrelated to her own priorities were met.  Carrying the fetus to term
without her consent was considered to be a profound interference to her 
body (Dunsmuir, 1990).  Since then, a new law has been proposed, but
it does not seem to adequately correct the problems of the 1969 law.
The new law would consider abortion illegal, unless it is performed
by, or directed by a qualified medical doctor who thinks the health
or life of the woman would be threatened without induced abortion.
Health was simply defined as relating to the physical, mental, and
psychological states of the patient.  The doctor was to derive his
opinion of a case using generally accepted standards of the medical
profession (Dunsmuir, 1989).  The new law is an improvement in that
it only requires one doctor to make a decision as opposed to three
doctors who would argue the case.  This would be a shorter process
than before.  The definition of health is still vague, and doctors
may feel pressured by pro-life groups not to perform legalized abortions.
This would result in the same infringements upon the woman's rights
as the old law had done before.  It is unlikely that this nation
would ever be able to decide upon a specific law for abortion without
offending a large number of people in the process.


NEXT POST:  Conclusions

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FACTS wanted
Date: 5 Nov 92 04:16:03 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <96149@netnews.upenn.edu>
myra@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Myra VanInwegen) writes:

>Howdy. I would like some statistics, or would like to be pointed to a
>reference that will provide them. I would like to know:

>Who gets abortions? (I think most of us have the opinion that a great
>deal of people wanting abortions are black inner city teenagers; I
>would like to see distributions according to age, race, social status
>[income level of family], and marital status.)

I've got some outdated data on this from the 1990 World Almanac; I
assume more recent World Almanacs would have more recent information.

                                 1972      1976     1980      1985
Reported # of legal abortions  586,760   988,267  1,297,606  1,328,570
Ratio per 1000 live births      180.1     312.0    359.2      353.8
Rate per 1000 women aged          13        21       25         24
     15-44 years
                 Percentage distribution (excludes unknowns)
  Age (years)
19 and under                     32.6      32.1     29.2       26.3
20-24                            32.5      33.3     35.3       34.7
25 and over                      34.9      34.6     35.3       39.0
  Race
White                            77.0      66.6     69.6       66.6
Black and other                  23.0      33.4     30.1       33.4
  Marital status
Married                          29.7      24.6     23.1       19.3
Unmarried                        70.3      75.4     76.9       80.7
  No. live births (living
  children for 1972 and 1976)
0                                49.4      47.7     58.4       56.6
1                                18.2      20.7     19.5       21.3
2                                13.3      15.4     13.7       14.5
3                                 8.7       8.3      5.3        5.1
4 and over                       10.4       7.9      3.2        2.5
   Type procedure
Curettage                        88.6      92.8     95.5       97.8
 Suction                         65.2      82.6     89.8       92.9
 Sharp                           23.4      10.2      5.7        5.0
Intrauterine instillation        10.4       6.0      3.1        1.5
Hysterotomy/hysterectomy          0.6       0.2      0.1       <0.05
Other                             0.5       0.9      1.3        0.7
  Weeks gestation
8 and under                      34.0      47.0     51.7       50.8
9-10                             30.7      28.0     26.2       26.2
11-12                            17.5      14.4     12.2       12.3
13-15                             8.4       4.5      5.2        5.9
16-20                             8.2       5.1      3.9        3.9
21 and over                       1.3       0.9      0.9        0.8

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: STEVE wants it both ways:
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:44:10 GMT
Organization: .

In article <nyikos.721597128@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>Note to people "playing attributions": before I deleted some of
>the attributions up there, there was one with five >'s up there,
>while the max below was also five.  So if I am to be hanged on not

With one dubious exception (the exception is dubious because it was
claimed by the woman whose name my cats cry out when they cough up
hairballs) in five years of posting I have never had a problem with
attributions.  An examination of the attributed posting is generally
enough to sort things out, and the defacto standard imposed by what
appears to the most frequently used posting software seems
straightforward enough.  As further evidence of this contention,
thousands of postings containing attributions are made on a daily
basis and received without objections.

So why can't you get it right?

-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:56:03 GMT

In article <1dapngINN53t@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> 
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:

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

>>frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:

>>> In the vast majority of abortions, the foetus will die in short order once 
>>> it has been removed.  

>> Let's say that I should have the right to leave a dying accident victim
>> alongside the road, and to refuse to drive them to the hospital.  Does it
>> follow that I should have the right to kill them?  Certainly not.  

> You have the right not to drive them - thus increasing the likelihood that
> they will die.  In the case of a z/e/f, increasing it to approximately 100%.

But a child is killed during an abortion, the child is not 
just 'left to die'.  You can't escape the fact that during
the vast majority of abortions, the child is intentionally
killed by the abortionist. 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Keeganblather says it all
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 07:44:11 GMT

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

>But the term "Keeganblather" implies that he's actually able
>to emit blathering sounds from his mouth, and I haven't seen 
>any evidence that Keegan possesses that much ability.  Perhaps a 
>more accurate description might be "KeeganDrool" or "KeeganSlobber", 
>which would denote his ability to let saliva drip down from his mouth 
>onto the keys of his keyboard.  That would be a very plausible 
>explanation for the constant drivel that we've seen coming from 
>Keegan. 

MOMMY!  Dougie's trying to harass Jim off the net!!!!!!

>Doug Holtsinger

                        -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: twisting words(about Thans for life)
Summary: Mister Misattribution strikes again! 
Organization: The last place on earth you'll find it is here. 
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:19:39 GMT

In article <nyikos.721421472@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Nov2.223133.8359@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>
>>>  When a woman
>>> is pregnant and that is ruining her life (no, this doesn't happen in *all*
>>> cases, but it does in some and those are the cases that are important to the
>>> pro-choice position) the pro-lifers would PREVENT her from getting "help"
>>> (ie an abortion) to put her life back on track?
>
>There are other kinds of help, from crisis pregnancy centers, to help women
>carry to term if that is what they would prefer.  Just how "pro-choice"
>is this person at rice.edu?  Pro-choice-for-abortion?

"this person at rice.edu" didn't have anything to do with any quotes in this
article, so I'd appreciate it if a certain "professor" at The USC would mind
his own stinking business.

--PLH (fortunately, professional busybodies like Petey Honey usually are
their own solution...)

--
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:55:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.202820.21921@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <1992Nov10.005056.24296@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu 
>>>I am not an addictions counselor.  I come into contact with 
>>>many *users* and their families.  The distinction between "use" 
>>>and "abuse" is quite *moot* if the impaired individual is un-
>>>able to function in a supportive capacity for a spouse or a
>>>child.  "I'm sorry, Sally, Daddy is wasted right now but I'm
>>>sure he'll tuck you in some other night".
>>
>>Similarly, the distinction between use and non-use is moot of the
>>individual in question simply fails to function in the capacity you
>>describe. This seems to be a concept that Bill has serious trouble
>>grasping.
>
>The irrelevance of your statement is uncharacteristic of you.  I 
>was (at the risk of stating the very obvious) not discussing the 
>difference between use and non-use.  I was responding to Larry,
>who questioned my understanding of use vs. abuse.
Yes, and I was pointing out that a similar lack of distinction obtains
between use and nonuse. And that what we are concerned about is
dysfunctional behavior, not use, nonuse, or abuse.

> At any rate,
>given your lack of real-life experience with such problems, you 
>might be well advised to obtain some before questioning my under-
>standing of the issue.
How impressive. Argumentum ad hominem and argument by authority
in the same sentence. Two fallacies in one. Try using the scientific
method. Post some data.

>  Until then, your speculations about the 
>benign social consequences of recreational drug use have no real
>credibility.
I'm being lectured about credibility by a guy who can't even show
controlled studies that:
1) Therapy is useful.
2) Drugs induce irresponsible behavior.
And yet is simultaneously maintaining that both therapy is useful
and that drugs should be banned to prevent dysfunctional behavior.
How entertaining.

>  You don't seem at all interested in how your be-
>havior might ultimately affect the lives of other people.
And you seem to be uninterested in letting people live they way they
choose, preferring to impose your own factually unsubstantiated
theories about the way they should live upon them.
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 19:52:30 GMT


In article <1992Nov6.150607.26064@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
 
>Do you have any idea how broadly mental health/illness is 
>defined, Dan?  Do you know what Adjustment Disorder is or
>anything about the diagnostic criteria for such?  Fortunately,
>I think you (and your "ilk") who support abortion on demand
>through the third trimester represent a substantial minority.
>You would do well to familiarize yourself with the relevant
>mental health issues before condemning Doug's position.
 
Oh Contrare Bill.  First I have no trouble being in a minority. 
I'd rather be right and in a minority, than wrong and hanging
with the crowd. 
 
Since I believe we should keep legislation out of this, 
I have no need to know much about medical diagnostics. I
trust the medical professionals who have been trained to
deal with it.  However, since you and DOD do not trust
the medical profession to make the determination, why
don't you explain Adjustment Disorder and the diagnostic 
criteria for such.  I also would love to hear how narrowly
you and DOD plan on defining health risks to the woman
that would allow her to get a legal abortion.  Go for 
it big guy.
 
>Bill
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:59:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.212758.25505@nas.nasa.gov> 
dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:

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

>> Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
>> the term of pregnancy.  In Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that the states 
>> may not prohibit third trimester abortions when the abortion is necessary 
>> to preserve the woman's ``health'' or life, but the Court gave a very broad 
>> definition to the term ``health'', including emotional and psychological
>> health (see the documentation below).  Additional documentation can be 
>> provided upon request.

> demonstrates fairly well one of the reasons I would oppose third
> tri-mester legislation that restricted abortions only for health of 
> mother.  It is fairly clear that does not understand the meaning
> of health.  He would want health very narrowly defined so that only
> women that meet his criteria would qualify.  I don't want people 
> such as defining health for others.  I much prefer that health
> be defined by the people involved with the help of medical 
> professionals.  

I never said that I wanted to define the term `health', much less
that I wanted to define it narrowly.  Before Roe v. Wade, many 
states had abortion laws in which they had given a definition
to the term `health' which was well understood by doctors. Of
course, Dan King would have us believe that the term mental 
`health' includes killing mentally retarded children so that 
their parents can be spared emotional grief.  

>Dan King


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (LYNN ALFORD)
Subject: Re: Charles Don Hall -- are you paying attention?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Organization: Florida State University
Distribution:  world
Date: 13 NOV 92 09:58:53    

In article <1992Nov10.010113.19522@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes...
> 
>Doug says it was all a joke.
> 
>Peter says he thought it was all a joke, followed closely by an
>assertion that the big, bad math prof was protecting someone.
> 
>Dennis^H^H^H^H^H^HSteve has not been heard from.  (Thank you, Patrick)
> 
>Darcy is liable to look in Black's, and tell us that "joke" and
>"protection" do not mean what we think they do.
> 
>It's 8:00 pm here.  Why shouldn't I expect the sun to rise?
> 
>ps  one thing you can be sure of, however:  bats are better than frogs

This is too bad.  He was completely right, up to this point.  And now he 
just had to blow it.

Lynn
  _____      The Darwin fish
\/    o\
/\_____/
  bb bb
I had an opinion just a moment ago.  Now where did I put it?
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47046 talk.politics.misc:58794 alt.politics.elections:23060