HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:24:13 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>> [Deletions]

>>> I think a healthy person's life is worth more than that of an
>>> AIDS patient. Almost 100% of AIDS patients will never make it 
>>> for more than a few years.

>> A commentary on the relative value of human life.  

> The statement which you've quoted above, like so many other
> statements quoted by pro-choicers, has been taken out of
> context.  From the reference line, it appears as though
> either Mark Cochran or Keith Cochran quoted Mr. Punders
> out of context, but I can't find an article which matches
> <1993Jan8.190010.13178@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>. 

> Next time, please take the time to *check* the original
> articles before you flame somebody--in 'rn', you can hit
> '^P' and it will take you back through the thread.

I responded as well, echoing Mr. Matheson's sentiments.  I would
like to apologize to Mr. Purdurs as well.

> Here's the original context, in which it is very clear
> that Mr. Punders is using an analogy to disprove his
> opponent's argument:

[--excerpt deleted--]

Well done, Mr. Holtsinger.  I assume this means that you will be
retaining context with the same rigor when you quote pro-choicers
as you demand from Mark Cochran and others.

-- 
Chris Lyman    /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /    my thoughts, my words
     "Dignity.  Always dignity." -- Gene Kelly in "Singin' in the Rain"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Darcy and the Twelve Specious Arguments.
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 02:42:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.020649.10006@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>-> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> >The opinions of a few idiots on t.a about Kevin Darcy doesn't constitute 
>-> >"common parlance", Mark. The very notion is absurd.
>-> >
>-> Kebbin, stop refering to yourself in the third person, or we'll all be
>-> forced to remind you that you are *not* a group, nor are you of
>-> sufficient rank to warrant the use of the royal "we".
>-> As for the common parlance of t.a. I would say that the opinions of
>-> the posters are the *only* source that defines common parlance (of
>-> t.a.).
>
>kebbin agrees with you mark. see:
>
>        "Let the readers decide that for themselves, Jimmy. Let
>        them decide for themselves."
>		<1992Apr20.211120.26746@rotag.mi.org>

Well, no, he doesn't agree with me. He gives me indigestion. So does
eating too much chili.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: NRL
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:29:17 GMT

In article <1ifvijINNpia@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne
Regard) writes:
>In article <markp.725732494@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark
Pundurs) writes:
>>In <30DEC92.15120932@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>
>>>Why do you feel pregnant women should not have a 
>>>right to refuse to have their bodies used to support a fetus?
>>
>>A woman has the right to avoid conception. Once her voluntary actions
>>have created a human being and placed that human in a position of 
>>dependency, she has obligated herself to act in accord with that human's
>>right to life.
>

I am totally confused by your use of the word "voluntary".  What does the
intent of the parents have to do with the humans right to life?


- Paul
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Date: 10 Jan 93 00:14:33 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Distribution: na
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1993Jan9.233232.8340@crd.ge.com> 
james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:

> "All fetuses _are_ white.  "White" means lack of pigment.  Black
> newborns are born white, and turn black shortly thereafter."
>		Suzanne Forgach <1991Jun13.232919.9128@noao.edu>

Ms. Forgach's statement has been proven to be essentially correct; 
see the attached article.  You can wipe that quote off your 
archives now.

---
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: suzanne on pigmentation and fetuses... she's correct!

A few weeks ago, I responded to a quote from Ms. Suzanne Forgach
in which she claimed something to the effect that black infants
are born white, and turn black shortly thereafter.  As it turns
out, Ms. Forgach is basically correct:

  "One other point worth comment concerns skin color.  Dark-skinned
   babies are born with light pigmentation; the coloration then
   darkens over the next 2 to 6 days.  The darker skin found 
   around the navel, nail beds, and ear lobes gives some indication
   of future coloration during childhood and adult years."

   _The Process of Human Development_, Second Edition,
   Little, Brown, and Company Publishers, 1986, pg. 124

There's also a picture in the book of a black mother and
her newborn infant with the caption, "The mother and
daughter exemplify the pigmentation differences that
are evident in newborns of dark-skinned parents". 

The mother in the picture is very dark-skinned, and 
the newborn infant is of very light pigmentation, but
I wouldn't quite characterize the skin color as "white". 
But I think Ms. Forgach's description of the pigmentation 
changes is basically accurate, although perhaps not 
quite technically correct.

I apologize to Ms. Forgach for doubting her word. 
I guess I should have done a little more research
on the subject before I opened my mouth. 


Doug Holtsinger

---
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 4 Jan 93 05:51:47 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
Patrick_Andrew_Barnes@cup.portal.com writes:
|I find it funny, and as a potential father in the future, sad that several
|pro choice people jumped on Edward Simond's back when he said that a woman
|got HERSELF pregnant, yet turn around and vehemently state that it is the
|woman's natural right to have an abortion.  C J even went so far as to
|claim nobody was involved but the mother and her doctor.  The prevailing
|attitude seems to be that the father DOES have responsibility for the
|pregnancy, DOES have responsibility for supporting the child, but DOESN'T
|have any say in the matter of whether that pregnancy is continued or not.

If a relationship exists between the woman & the man (which is
not always true), and if that relationship is a "good" one, the
woman will probably consult the man.  But it's her body;
therefore it's her decision.  She can abort without his approval.
She can bring to term without his approval (though in this case
I feel she has no right to any support from him, subject to some
conditions).

Sorry this causes you conniption fits.  But it's reality.  Lump it.
If you ever get pregnant, I support your right to make your own
decision about abortion, without requiring you to consult anyone
else.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:15:48 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1993Jan8.185215.12992@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
by mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran):

Lessee.  Just browsing through t.a.  I like Mark Cochran's posts,
so I gave this one a read, and...

> In article <1993Jan7.224312.5846@noao.edu>
> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>>Yeah.   She ain't yours.   She's another man's, a man who's been
>>with your wife.   I hope it drives you crazy.

Here it is!  I found it!  James Keegan wrote a post called "anti-
choice morality" based (in part) on this atrocity.  He suggested
that the failure of pro-life folks to condemn Suzanne's behavior
was evidence for some sort of moral compromise.  Now I see why.

Suzanne: your comment is sick.  Your vindictiveness is unhealthy.
I think an apology is in order.

James: remember, I don't care what you think.

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: NRL
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:59:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.160656.4107@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu
(Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <C0FF9F.En8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>
>>>In article <C0CBty.n1y@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
writes:
>>
>>>>I freely admit that a preborn baby human being is not LEGALLY defined
>>>>as a "person".  The moral and scientific evidence that it SHOULD be
>>>>defined as such has been beat to death already.  
>>>>
>>>When? All I've ever seen is medical and scientific evidence that it is
>>>*not* a person. As in, not sentient etc. Care to show otherwise?
>>
>>Is a newborn sentient?  Is a person in a coma sentient?   Is a sleeper
>>sentient?  Is a mentally retarded person sentient?  
>>
>I'll address these one at a time.
>"Is a newborn sentient?"
>Yes. There is evidence that infants as early as a day or so are capable
>of recognising their mothers.
>
>"Is a person in a coma sentient?"
>Depends on the coma, and the amount of brain damage the person has
>suffered.
>
>"Is a sleeper sentient?"
>Certainly. Just wake them up if you doubt it...
>
>"Is a mentally retarded person sentient?"
>Certainly. We have a gentleman working at the hospital in the kitchen
>who is MR, and I don't think anybody disputes his sentience. 

>--
>                  Mark Cochran          

I don't see the point of this reasoning, Mark.  Show that all these other
people are "sentient" doesnt show the unborn isn't.  You said "sentient, etc."
but then addressed only the former.

- Paul


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Waiting for an appology from Peter Ny
Date: 6 Jan 1993 12:12:05 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <bob1.726342272@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>Or you could take the view I hold. Namely that an insult from the Doctor
>is almost like getting the Congressional medal of Honor.	

Nah.  nowhere near rare enough, and all you have to do is disagree with
him or ignore him.  Hardly heroics.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
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: Tue, 5 Jan 93 00:05:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.192416.5661@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1217@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>In article <nyikos.725573716@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>[everything but the following sentence deleted]
>>>That was an attempt by Holtsinger to quote Humphrey, to illustrate what 
>>>racist tendencies this redneck has.  
>>
>>For ten points, spot the racial slur in the above quote.  For
>>10,000 points, guess what basis PHoney is using to assign a
>>race to Patrick.
>>
>Let me guess... "Redneck" would be the racial slur, would it not? And,
>like so much else, PHoney is assigning a race to Patrick based on....
>his own fantasies.
>Who'sz the scorekeeper?

Galen is, of course.

I wonder if Darcy is going to comment on Patrick being a "group" of people
now...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=Ex-Boyfriend of Scott.  Ex-Girlfriend of Lynn, Sarah, James, Larry, Linda,   =
= Susan, and Rocker.  Space Reserved For Patrick, Gordon, and Druiex... (FWA!)=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:38:22 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>We all know you're blind as a bat.  Just look at what you married.
>
>... By the way, I've been on the net longer than you have been.
>
>> --PLH, I don't think that's how Dale's daughter got here, though...
>Yeah.   She ain't yours.   She's another man's, a man who's been with your
>wife.   I hope it drives you crazy.

Cripes, Suzanne, get some tact.  You're a hateful, spiteful woman
living in your own dream world and refusing to come out because
everything is so very pretty in there.  You haven't a clue what
abortion is all about; moreover, by not even caring what the other
side has to say, you've demonstrated the mentality of a twelve-year-
old towards the subject.

If you really want to help the pro-life movement, then demonstrate
some compassion towards pregnant women seeking abortions, and give
them the support they need to be able to choose birth.  If you want to
help the pro-choice side, though, just keep posting to this newsgroup,
thereby letting everybody know just what "pro-life" really means.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:16:34 GMT

In <1993Jan8.212721.22962@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>But how can women approach economic
>parity without reproductive freedom?  Do you not see how
>unequal reproductive rights would hamper women in the
>workplace?

Irrelevant. If the z/e/f is not human, or may legitimately evicted from
her mother's womb, then ANY reason is sufficient for an abortion. If
the z/e/f is human, and may not legitimately be evicted, then her
primary right to life outweighs her mother's secondary (because
dependent on the right to life) economic rights.

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 18:19:01 GMT

In article <C0CB4v.Msy@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>>In article <C05BwG.Gnz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>>#Sources please.
>
>>As I said, I'll post them next week.
>
>>#Regarding Nathanson... of COURSE no other NARAL members are going to
>>#support his statements.  Would you actually think they would? 
>
>>So, you were lying when you said "They have since admitted they were
>>lying through their teeth?", weren't you?  Did you think it would 
>>help you in the debate to simply make something up?
>
>WHAT?  Since when did I state I was lying?  If Mr. Nathanson WAS a member
>of NARAL, which he was, then any statements he makes about their actions
>and motives are just as credible as their own statements.  For anyone 
>in NARAL to admit that even a small portion of Mr. Nathanson's statements
>were true would be tantamount to your admitting you were kidding all along,
>and that you were really an active Operation Rescue member.  
>
You posted "They have since admitted they were lying[...]" which
implies that the NARAL admitted they were lying. The truth of the
matter is that one individual who was not assosiated with the NARAL
claimed that they were lying. Not at all the same, but we don't expect
you to have the honesty or the intelligence to admit it.

>>(The whistling sound you hear is your credibility flying out
>>the window.)
>
>.... pot calling the kettle black? .....
>
>>#Let us not forget that even sources don't mean much.  Statistics can
>>#be manufactured to support almost anything.
>
>>Are you speaking from experience?
>
>*shrug* Perhaps.  We can see, however, from your extensive mendacity on
>this net, that you pioneered the skewing of facts and statistics.  
>
Care to show any evidence that Susan as skewed any facts or
statistics? I doubt you'll be able to, since I've never seen her do
any such thing. It's just another of your lies.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Date: 5 Jan 93 12:44:38 CST

In article <1993Jan05.065315.27243@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>Wimmin is sweet.  You ain't.  QED

Hmmmmm.  First I'm bitter, now I'm sweet.

muriel
off to find a copy of _The Edible Woman_.

standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers 
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:53:53 GMT

In article <C0JyD0.Kpq@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>
> ... No matter what, it does come down to the question,
>"Is abortion murder?"

And the Scriptural answer to that question is a resounding No!  The
supporting Biblical verses have been posted many times in this group.
Listen, you are not argueing against me any other mortal.  You are
argueing against the Bible--the Word of God.

>  ... If it is not, abortion could still be a
>sin for a Christian to get one, because she would have to trample over the 
>consciences of other Christians to get one.

Why?  Your conscience counts nothing in the eyes of God.  Bible should
be the only guidance to the Christian conduct.  There are Christians,
such as Quakers, Mennonites, ..., who are pacificists, and do we
trample over their consciences by supporting our armed forces?
Do you have to burn your draft card in order not to trample over
their consciences?

Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: What makes me very sad (and I don't call anyone names!)
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 22:01:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.025335.29493@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

> No one yet has posted a snippet of evidence that making abortion 
> illegal would even reduce the abortion rate.

Perhaps it would be helpful for you to explain what you 
would accept as evidence.  Often times I have posted 
quotes from respected sources, only to have pro-choicers 
dismiss my evidence as insufficient without any accompanying 
explanation.  It would be refreshing to see a pro-choicer
state, up front, their criteria for accepting evidence.

In addition, it might be helpful to explain the method by
which any other law could be demonstrated as having a 
significant effect on peoples' actions or beliefs.  I don't 
want to fall into the trap of concluding that we should 
not enact a law which cannot be demonstrated to have an 
effect, according to your own criteria for evidence.  
If you believe that no law can be shown to have an effect, 
then it will be a waste of time engaging you on this topic.
 
> I can't remember who it was, and I didn't save
> it, but one posting I recall suggested that in Brazil (where abortion
> is largely illegal) there is in fact a higher rate of abortion than
> in the US (where abortion is largely legal).  

Brazil has tight restrictions on the availability of
contraceptives, which has been shown to have a strong
influence on the abortion rate.  An article in the....uh, wait...
I don't know what you would accept as evidence, so I'll
guess I'll have to wait until you tell me.

> I don't mean to say that laws are bad.  What I do mean to say is that
> far, far too many people rely on calling 911 or the cops to do
> what they themselves might otherwise do.  Do you think killing 
> babies is wrong?  Stop it.  Put your body where your mouth is.  
> I know if I believed, really believed, that murder were taking place
> in a location that I passed by each day or each week I'd sure as
> hell be in there sticking my body in between the killer and the killee.

Sticking my body between the abortionist's knife and the child
will not prevent an abortion; it will only delay it.  There's no 
way I can prevent an abortion short of chaining myself to the
woman.  Besides, abortion is here to stay, and we could never eliminate
it completely.  Efforts to reduce the number of abortions are much 
better spent on other activities, which are not exclusively limited
to lobbying for legislation. 


>Galen Hekhuis  


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Let me state my view (flames welcome :-)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:27:07 GMT

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
->keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
->|>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
->|>-> Guess what I'M BAAACK....
->|>
->|>mind-boggling the way everyone leaped in elation,
->|>isn't it?
->|>
->I doubt it.

->|>-> 1. A fetus is a human being were as life begins at conception...you
->|>->    can't prove otherwise so it must be true.
->|>
->|>faulty logic. [rest of argument based on first
->|>flawed premise deleted.]

->Are you willing to kill 1.5 million people just because you don't "think"
->that they are a person...Please prove to me that life does not begin at
->conception.

jeffrey, i'm going to write this very slowly. feel free
to move your lips when you read it to yourself. you
made a statement. it's up there included above. your
statement makes no sense and has been debunked many
times before. you say "you can't prove otherwise so it
must be true" as the foundation of your statement. you
can't prove i didn't have english muffins for breakfast
this morning jeffrey so, under your logic, it must be
true. but it's not true jeffrey. i didn't have english
muffins for breakfast this morning, jeffrey. do you get
the point?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion