HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: SIMPLE ANSWER
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:19:56 GMT

In article <18lea2INN4hb@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>
>Assuming she is one of the nine of ten women whose abortions take
>place in the first trimester, she is compelled to view a bunch of
>photos of fetuses developed way beyond the one in her.

None of those photos are inexact, Mark Kaufman. 

Could you show us one instance in which a hospital has shown a woman,
in fetal development information, a fetus developed 1 day beyond the
one she's carrying? 

Or is this one of your fantasies again? 

Put up or shut up, lest I use this and parade it across USENET as
another one of your lies. 

=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36186 alt.abortion.inequity:3686
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 12 Sep 92 07:23:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <xbnnk4=.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> 
|> Pretty close.  I agree pretty much with Jennifer here.  If you are going
|> to legislate that the state controls a woman's womb then you had better be
|> prepared to have your testicles controlled by the state too.

	Nobody on the pro-life side (that I know of) proposes to enact state
controls over the womb.  We're merely proposing that a woman not be allowed to
kill the child for whose existence and presence in her womb she is responsible. 
That the creation and development of the child occurs in her womb is incidental. 
I would not object to a woman removing the child from her womb so long as she did
not kill it in the process.

Steve
From: padraig@astro.as.utexas.edu (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 15 Sep 92 06:41:17 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <a4vn-vr.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
]mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov wrote (in article <1992Sep10.150225.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov>):
]>I'm a pro-life Christian, but I did a lot of thinking about the topic before
]>I took my and.  What finally made it clear to me was this:
]
][ example deleted, where he indicates that he doesn't think a "deadline"
]  can be set for an abortion ]
]
]>Then I decided that abortion is wrong.
]
]A 9th-month fetus may not be very different from an 8th-month 30th-day
]fetus which may not be very different from an 8th-month 29th-day
]fetus, and so forth down to conception, but a fetus at nine months is
]radically different from a fetus at 2 months.  At some point you've
]got to draw the line...


Of course, all of this merely shows that the anti-choice camp cannot tell
night from day.

Padraig Houlahan.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Lies about 'abortion on demand'
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:46:29 GMT

I see that DearOldDoug continues to assert that the Democratic platform
endorses abortion on demand, despite having been repeatedly refuted.  Of
course, the _text_ of the Democratic platform endorses the Freedom of
Choice Act, the _text_ of which allows states to restrict access to
abortion in the third trimester, just as in the _text_ Roe vs. Wade.

Lately, a lot of bandwidth has been spilled in a debate as to whether or
not advice to DearOldDoug, Chaneyhall, etc. to get counseling was sincere
or meant to be insulting.  I would say that DearOldDoug certainly seems
to be delusional; anyone who repeatedly posts misleading information 
about easily verifiable legal decisions, platform planks and pending 
legislation has, for lack of a better term, 'a screw loose somewhere.'

Note: this is not intended to be a definitive diagnosis! :-)

But... I blather.  Recently on 60 minutes, they told the story of a 
pregnant woman with gestational diabetes was flown to a hospital in
Boulder CO for a third-trimester abortion to save her life.  The hospital
refused to perform the abortion, so she was flown by helicopter to a
clinic.  During the helicopter flight, she went into shock.  Given these
facts, I wonder how DearOldDoug can continue to assert that we have
abortion on demand in these United States.

I find the term 'abortion on demand' to be offensive.  This insinuates
that all women who get abortions _want_ abortions.  Common sense tells
me that a woman whose health or life circumstances force her to terminate 
a pregnancy _may_ be disappointed to have to seek an abortion.

Doug Holtsinger is a sexist for believing that all women who seek
abortions want abortions.


-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:39:58 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Eric
>Kevin
>>Chris
>>>Eric
>>>> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (No - No  Never) writes:
>>>  ^^^^^^


>>>I was a little taken aback by your response, Eric, but then I looked
>>>at the attribution line.  Talk about ikky-gross:  Kevin Welch is back!

>>>So Kevin, have you harassed any pregnant women lately? >:-|

>>I've never harassed a woman for being pregnant.  I usually congratulate them
>>for achieving it.

>So, Kevin, are you going to apologize to all the rape victims that
>you insulted in the above post?

Hey, Eric.  What is your problem?  Are you just plain stupid?  Or ignorant?
First you misconstrue my response (which was just another way of saying
abstinence - with no reference intended whatsoever to rape); then you ask
me to apologize to raped women for congratulating a woman for getting pregnant.

I see you enjoy throwing my words back at me.  But since you are having a 
little trouble understanding my statements, I'll spell then out for you.

Number one, abstinence is a sure way to prevent pregnancy.  I do NOT believe
that it is any deterent to a deranged rapist.  I never said that abstinence
had anything to do with being raped, nor did I intend it.

Number two, I've never harassed a woman for being pregnant.  In most cases,
when I meet a pregnant woman, I congratulate her (and her husband, boyfriend
if he's there too).  Creating a child is something special to me, and I
hope it is for others.

But most of all, Eric, last semester I apologized to Susan for what I said to 
her.  I
admitted then and now that it was uncalled for.  I also apologized to 
the network for my conduct.  I came back hoping to start over again with
some good, thought provoking communication, and I entered this forum with
no hostility towards anyone.  You were the first to draw any blood between
me and the rest of the network.  Say it if it makes you feel better, but
you are not going to draw me into any senseless flame wars.  It is your
choice if you wish to keep that alive.

Like I always have believed, you have the right to say whatever you
want.  Just remember respect.

>Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu

kcw



--
Kevin Welch						  POLITICALLY INCORRECT
University of Pennsylvania				  FREE MINDS
kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu				  FREE MARKETS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++FREE SOCIETY
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: "Abortion" on a not-pregnant woman
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 22:16:54 GMT

In <1992Sep3.214438.53809@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> deh0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (DARCY ELIZABETH HOWE) writes:

>In article <5752@catnip.berkeley.ca.us>, tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Sti
>mpy's Love Child) writes:
>>In article <nyikos.715045629@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu
> (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>>This testimony was given by Nita Whitten, of Dallas, Texas, a former
>>>clinic assistant.  I am repeating it verbatim as given in _The Forerunner_
>>>despite the fact that some pro-choicers will find some of it
>>>(for example, "I decided to give my life to the Lord") highly offensive.
>>
>>What I find highly offensive about this little tale is that there are a
>>bunch of serious accusations without a shred of evidence,

What you find offensive is "I decided to give my life to the Lord,"
as becomes obvious from your sig., and what comes directly before.

>>
>>> [...She doesn't want to see abortion results because she's beginnin' to
>>>  See The Light[tm] ... she becomes chemically dependent because of Satan's
>>>  Work... she gets an abortion when she isn't pregnant, which leads to PID]
>>
>>Oh, honey, given this level of incompetence, you have a *definite* case
>>for malpractice.  Go get 'em!

You'd think so, wouldn't you, but do you have any idea how long these
things drag out?  Five years is not unusual.  You see, abortionists will
appeal these things as high as they possibly can, and they can outspend 
you many times over, and some of the best legal minds in the country are
pro-abortionist (not just pro-choice, not just pro-abortion).

>>  Oh, no evidence?  I guess she didn't sue 'em,
>>huh?  Why is that?  Could it maybe be that she made the whole thing up to
>>please her new pal Lord Jesus?  Kinda like the "revelations" people have of
>>being involved in Satanic rituals with their parents long ago even though
>>the evidence says something completely different?
>>
>>Give me a break.  I'm surprised she didn't say that the doctors would take
>>the discarded fetuses' blood to scrawl pentagrams on the parking lot during
>>Satanic orgies on Halloween with Elvis.
>>
>>--Teddi
>>----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
>>

And now to the new part of the post:

>I'm also confused (and not taking sides for this post):  How can anyone
>possibly have an abortion while not pregnant?  What would be the point?  Or
>don't I understand the semantics involved here?

They go all through the usual motions, except that there is no pregnancy.
For instance, they stick the suction curette up into the womb and suck
out the contents.

What would be the point?  Money.

Peter Nyikos
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: "Hardly ever" justified?  Hmmmmmm...
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:09:16 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <nyikos.715887517@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>Taking the law into one's hands to this extent is hardly ever justified.

This is interesting.  This means you think it *is* justified, sometimes.
When?

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35635 talk.bizarre:29315
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.bizarre
Subject: Missing Link Revealed....
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:14:01 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) writes:
] In article <1992Sep3.103852.7379@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >
] >ps: and Yes, I understand 'one flew over the cuckoo's nest'
] >from a first hand tour on tripler army hospital's psych ward, 
] >in '67....
] 
] Oh, my God!  I've worked at both the hospital that treated Kent, AND ALSO
] the hospital that treated Drieux.....
] --scott
] 
]    (Okay, I didn't work in the psych ward at Tripler, but with folks
]     doing pulmonary work, but still...)


And folks wonder where the phrase:

'Its a Kludge, but it works...'

came from....


ciao
drieux




-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Woodyatt: He inhaled (was Re: Questions about "consensus"
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:10:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.185825.8611@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
># I would like to know where the idea came from that laws are made
># simply because the majority decided something was wrong. 
># 
># By the way, this is a trick question. 
>
>It came from thick-headed maroons like you who've deviated from Nature
>and blasphemed against Holy Writ by denying the TRUTH of God's Laws as
>handed down by God's Chozen Profits!!!
>
>If it weren't for diabolical agents of EEE-vil like *YOU*, we wouldn't
>be on the express bullet train straight to HELL that we call a Federal
>Republic -- and pretend that it embodies the heresy of egalitarian
>democracy, though it's actually an atheist, capitalist, fascist,
>corporate feudalism -- weeping and gnashing our teeth as we bide our
>time until the Great Judgement!


This is a prime example of what humans evolved from. 


>What do I win? 

A banana. 


-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35222 talk.religion.misc:15705
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 15:41:36 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)

In article <nyikos.715650400@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <lacgvmINN56h@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

##As a third degree Wiccan priest who leads a coven of my own I rebuke
##your statement that Wicca is a subset of the feminist movement.
#
#Are you saying that it is impossible for a male to be part of the 
#feminist movement?

No, he's saying that Wicca is not a subset of the feminist 
movement.  Do you really have that much trouble understanding
the written word?

#Anticipating a Yes answer, let me add: are men barred from 
#membership in NOW?

Of course not.  Many men are feminists.  You can recognize them
by their actions - they treat women as equals, and work to
guarantee that no one is discriminated against because of
their gender.  They don't refer to women as "bitches," nor
do they claim that there are no women engineers when there
certainly are.

Susan
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Attention!
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:04:43 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

In article <1992Sep14.164418.5789@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> In <fv7yvxg@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.acm.rpi.edu 
->    (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
-> In article <1992Sep11.152346.21670@acd4.acd.com>
->    wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
-> In <1992Sep10.114521.21248@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
->    (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >>>
-> In article <1992Sep9.231533.14559@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu 
->    (Stephen A Chaney) writes: >>>>
-> 
-> >>>> I proved my case and presented all the facts
-> >>>> needed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
-> >
-> >>> Perhaps in the dimly lit theater of your mind
-> >>> you did.
-> >
-> >>> This boy is one funny little feller.  Keeps
-> >>> declaring victory for himself no matter how
-> >>> stupid the posting he presents.
-> > 
-> >>> And Overpeck doesn't think this little feller
-> >>> needs a therapist?
-> > 
-> >> Hmm.  Well, to me, it doesn't sound substantively
-> >> different than the following, which was written
-> >> after I'd asked Keegan to defend his diagnostic
-> >> impressions by providing a list of symptoms that
-> >> seem applicable to Holtsinger or Chaney
-> >
-> > believe it or not, bill did ask this of me! i've
-> > been trying to come up with some king of
-> > reasonable explanation for his having done so, but
-> > i can't. i never posted a "diagnostic impression."
-> 
-> Sorry, Jim.  

apology accepted.

-> Your inference of "denial" clearly represents the
-> equivalent of a "diagnostic impression".  That you
-> are unfamiliar with the terminology doesn't change
-> its effect.

you're mistaken, bill. this is a talk group on the
subject of abortion. conversation on that subject quite
often involves the expression of personal opinions.
that your particular background might be a bit too
rigid for you to distinguish between an expression of
opinion and a "diagnostic impression" says little for
your training, or you.

-> > i have no qualifications to do so, not have i ever
-> > claimed any. i've repeatedly expressed clearly
-> > labeled opinions and bill seems compelled to label
-> > them otherwise.
-> 
-> Now that you are aware of your error, you can
-> acknowledge that you really don't know whether Doug
-> suffers from denial or not, can't you?

did i say he suffered from denial?

what's the clinical term for misreprsenting what people
say, bill?

-> > if some well-known posters had done this, there
-> > would be no question that they were openly lying.
-> > i'd hate to suggest that bill is. perhaps there's
-> > another explanation and i just haven't thought of
-> > it.
-> 
-> Perhaps you're in over your head here, Jim, and
-> redirection is the only way to save face?

projecting again, bill?



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Bats don't suck blood was (Re: Hey, Ata Boy - outta here!)
Date: 14 Sep 92 12:28:11 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep11.142500.29819@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> In article <1992Sep11.133839.3909@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
> (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> }Mr Mezias did not refer to vampire bats, but to vampires. 
> 
> So what are you trying to say, that vampires suck?   Do you have
> any documentation?  Besides Scientific American, that is, that sounds
> like a pro-vampire publication to me...

While I would have to read the relevant text to determine if
Mr Stoker used the word "suck" or "drink," I do have a reference.

"Dracula" by Bram Stoker.  Available in paperback at a bookstore
near you.

Walk, don't fly, to the nearest bookstore and pick up your
copy today.

And stay out of flat spins.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: 13 Sep 92 15:50:19 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <nyikos.716327790@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
> I have not yet begun to fight.

Then you admit that so far you've just been flailing around impotently?  :-)

> I can run circles around most people when it comes to
> science and philosophy.

You've certainly shown no sign of it; in fact, you've shown yourself
to be rather ignorant of logic and set theory.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Question for Larry Margolis
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:11:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep04.194313.9503@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

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

>> Why should anyone accept your pro-abortion sources, like the Alan
>> Guttmacher Institute and the National Abortion Federation, if
>> you're unwilling to accept unbiased sources from anyone who
>> disagrees with you?

> I'm willing to accept anything, regardless of source, but take it with a
> grain of salt.  I won't accept speculation as fact, and if I don't believe
> things presented as fact are correct, I might investigate.  

I'm sorry, but you're really weasling here.  If you wish to 
label the work of a respected Georgetown University law professor
as "speculation", then I'm entitled to label the claims of 
the National Abortion Federation as "speculation".  At least 
my sources are not prejudicial to one side of the issue, unlike 
your sources.


>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Keywords: abortion, rape, sexual battery
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 01:46:50 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


pn>In article <nyikos.715653137@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
writes:
sr>In <Bu0otI.10B@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

sr>(2) This docter would never be defended as caring about women based 
sr>on his activities described in the article.

pn>But some people will defend all abortionists and challenge the evidence
pn>that any such thing as the Ft. Lauderdale case could ever have happened.

Who are these people?  Are they people in this forum?  All I have seen 
people in this forum do is question you on why you think this case is
pertinent to the abortion debate.  

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion