HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: repost
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:53:48 GMT
Distribution: uscar
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In article <1992Aug18.122206.650@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
   posted by gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
> For now, I'll just refer y'all to _Aborted Women, Silent No More_

Do you have any references that *haven't* been thoroughly refuted?

> My definition of "early": prior to sentience (would be even nicer
> if prior to implantation--I think the Pill and IUD's should remain
> legal unless they have an unacceptable number of side-effects for
> the woman).  Sentience, I believe, is present by the end of the
> seventh week [not month, as Ms. Bartley seems to assume].

You're incorrect.  Neuroscientists place the minimal time for
personhood at 7 *months* (28 weeks).

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Other Flip-Floppers on abortion
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:26:09 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  <1992Aug21.183653.27764@oakhill.sps.mot.com>  pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
> In article <1992Aug21.051959.12440@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
> .....
> >in delay in trying to raise funds.  Or it could be called pro-sound-fiscal-
> >policy, since for every $1 spent by the government to pay for abortions for
> >poor women, about $4 is saved in public medical and welfare expenditures
> >incurred as a result of the unintended birth.
>
> Do they count the loss of revenue from a future taxpayer in this
> calculation?

This is savings "in funds that would otherwise have to be spent to provide
medical care, welfare, and other social services to women who by law would
be eligible for such services if they became pregnant".  It doesn't count
savings from women who would be forced to go on welfare if they had to
go through an unexpected pregnancy, or costs associated with the
offspring (more likely to go on welfare, more likely to wind up in prison,
etc.).  The actual net savings are, as someone pointed out in email,
undoubtedly much higher.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:43:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.142025.4064@spdc.ti.com> 
serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:

> If you are not willing to accept responsibility for the possible failure
> of contraception, then yes, you should consider celibacy.  

Refraining from sexual intercourse does not mean refraining from sex, 
since there's always oral sex, anal sex, and mutual masturbation, among 
other forms of sex.  There's a wide variety of possibilities besides
the missionary position.  Please don't confuse "sexual intercourse"
with "sex". 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Hack logic? (was Re: Dirigible Boy Logic (was Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all thing) )apparently
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:26:38 GMT

In article <darkstar.714072061@milton> darkstar@milton.u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann) writes:
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug14.184344.26798@u.washington.edu> darkstar@u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann) writes:
>
>>				Get lost, Humphrey. 
>
>Connecting names and personalities is a difficult task for you, Steve. 
>You have called me drieux, Scott Roby, and now Patrick.  I am Alden.  You
>are Steve, aka Dennis.  

Well, Mr. Hack, you get what you deserve when you refer to me as other
names besides that which I have and that which I have posted under.
Which excludes Dennis Hall. 

You _do_ understand that what is good for the goose, is good for the
gander, right? 

>Is that clear?  Is it really that difficult?  Or do you just lose track of
>who is persecuting you at any particular moment?

No, it's more like you, along with the ever-confused evangelist Scott
Roby, have no idea from one minute to the next, who is posting to
USENET. 

For you to continue to refer to me as "Dennis Hall" indicates how
confused you are. I thought I'd be just as confused, but it's hard to
be nearly as confused as you folks when I can't bring myself to wholly
believe in the Bible of Scott Roby. 

>Alden 
>
>FounderOfDrieuxidsForJesus


===============================================================================
		Founder, Reality Checkers for Jerry Browners. 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who was "Dennis Hall"?
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:57:27 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: LLNL


	Thanx for the info on "Dennis Hall".

	I wonder why Steven Chaney is called the "Propeller Boy" and
the "Dirigible Boy"? Is "Propeller Boy" an implication that he wears a
propeller beanie?
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: DearOldDoug GooseSteps With Goebbels...
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 04:21:26 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug17.002322.9561@wetware.com>  drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
> first off, my apologies to the folks in t.p.m and a.p.b,

Wait a minute - isn't 'a.p.b' generally alt.personals.bondage?

> we try to keep DearOldDoug at home, but you just can't
> keep them chained to the bed post all the time....

Aha - just as I suspected!  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary and other things...
Date: 12 Aug 92 12:27:05 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <23500@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>tes:

>                Shhhh, Novak.

More delusions from the pr-pr-pr-pro-pro-pro-prop-prop-propeller boy....

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 01:54:50 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>Don'tcha get it, Steve?  Most self proclaimed pro-choicers, say like
>Rocker/Cathi Cook, are pro-"choice" in name only.   They do NOTHING to
>provide women with any choice BUT abortion.   

You are lying, Forgach.

Just for laughs, I'll ask you to prove this statement or post an
apology to me.

>Suzanne Forgach

                   -rocker
                    not holding her breath, y'know?
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to not vote for Bush
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:07:14 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>DH> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>DH> Your statement is a gross mischaracterization of those people who
>>DH> call themselves pro-life.  Many religious people do offer reasoned
>>DH> arguments about abortion which are not based upon the existence of
>>DH> God.  In addition, there are many non-religious people who oppose
>>DH> abortion.

>>Two responses to this drivel:
>>
>>(1) I have NEVER heard a well-reasoned anti-abortion argument.  At least
>>religious fanatics have an excuse.  What's yours, atheist?  

>Sounds like you've been in outer space next to Jerry Brown. 

Oh my, what a _funny_ little Dysfunctional Boy.

>Fetus = member of human species != skin cell and alive = personhood
>        because they're alive. 
>Freedom of choice != right to kill -> ban on abortion

>Novak: Here is a puzzle: 
>
>Find the biblical reference in my above argument. 
>Until then, your argument is dust. 

You forgot: I said "well-reasoned argument".  Your statement is simple
blatant assertion, and quite unimaginative at that.  I repeat: I've never
heard a well-reasoned anti-abortion argument.  Yours is laughable.




-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Compassion (was: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because: )
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:36:45 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Aug17.174732.2761@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
(Larry's intelligent argument deleted--God, my respect for that man
grows daily!)
>Well, pregnancies terminate with childbirth. Still 99% non-lethal,
>95%+ non-injurious. And harmless to the baby to boot. 

     Statistics please! Babies never die at birth?
>Seeing as that you've only proven to us that the only form of
>termination of bodily conditions, to date, is that which (in the case
>of, most conspicuously hunger) does not make victims of someone else,
>we could, in consistency with your statement, say: 

>Childbirth ought to be free, along with prenatal care. 

     Of course it should. So should abortion.

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


(Chaney's silly .sig deleted for reasons of taste)

                                                            MP
.
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: KowTowing Before History
Date: 18 Aug 92 10:26:33 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
] In article <1992Aug16.215356.8703@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, 
] just drieux) writes:
] 
] }Things have gone a long way from the Bayonet Charge and
] }the Black Powder Muskets of your era....
] 
] Back in my day, we had it rough.  Gunpowder?  We didn't even have
] guns.  We had sticks and rocks though.  That's what they said
] would be left after WWIII.  What goes around comes around.  [ed]


Oh You were LUCKY!

We would Have LOVED to have sticks and rocks!!!!!

We had to rip down trees with our BARE HANDS......


{stop me if you know where this is going... }


ciao
drieux

"Sometimes a great Notion"
	by K. keasey


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc.alt.politics.bush
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:15:57 GMT

In article <Bsz84u.36A.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> No, Holtsinger, he said that all women deserve support of their right to
> choose.  

And that's sexist, because he assumes that all women would actually 
_want_ support of their right to an abortion, i.e. that all women are 
pro-choice.  Not every woman _wants_ support for abortion rights;
many women are pro-life.  By failing to recognize women as individuals
who have a variety of opinions on abortion, he assumes that all women
think alike on the issue of abortion, which is a sexist attitude. 

If he said "all people deserve support of their right to discriminate
against homosexuals", then wouldn't that wrongly assume that all people 
would actually _want_ to discriminate against homosexuals?  Certainly,
and it would also reveal himself as being homophobic. 

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:59:04
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu's message of Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:33:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.163353.6443@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

> Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports exceptions for rape
> and incest, and for the life of the mother.   

Not to mention the exception for his relatives.

--
Matthew Austern              I dreamt I was being followed by a roving band 
(510) 644-2618               of young Republicans, all wearing the same suit,
matt@physics.berkeley.edu    taunting me and shouting, "Politically correct
austern@theorm.lbl.gov       multiculturist scum!"... They were going to make
austern@lbl.bitnet	     me kiss Jesse Helms's picture when I woke up.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:05:20 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  <Bt9q3K.As@rice.edu>  patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>
> I'd appreciate it if you'd speak only of things you know about.

Look!  Humphrey is trying to shut Chaney up completely!  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Compassion (was: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because: )
Date: 12 Aug 92 12:23:47 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:

>abortion has nothing to do with compassion.  If you were truly

Tell that to the 12 year old Irish girl's parents. You remember the
one, the one that was raped, and even strictly pro-life Ireland with
their bloody Catholic priests gave blessing to letting her out of the
country and obtain an abortion. Why? Because it was the *only* compassionate
thing they could do.

>compassionate, you would feel compassion for the baby (fetus) that is

Why? Do you feel compassion for a dead ant? Roach? Rat? Possum? Bat?
Someone you have no idea about from another continent you see dead on
CNN?

>killed.  Compassion doesn't mean to let everyone take the easy way
>out of difficult or desperate situations.  Compassion would be to

Todd, just to break it to you, and hopefully you'll catch this clue,
there generally is no easy way out of a pregnancy. Why you have this
conception that abortion is an easy way out puzzles me. It makes decisions
afterwards more open, but the decision itself is not an easy matter
for the woman.

>help them (not just the mother, also the baby) through it.

Only if they choose to have it. My compassion would be to help them
through whatever course they choose to take. That is true compassion,
even if you feel their choice is wrong.

>There is never no other choice but to get an abortion.

Who said there was? We're discusing (primarily, in this newsgroup) those
who choose abortion.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Putting out the fire, sort of
Date: 19 Aug 1992 06:59:39 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Harvard -- because not just anyone can get into Rice!

It appears some folks are a bit upset over something I aimed at Steve Chaney
in an article I posted to this group this weekend -- I've picked up two
pieces of e-mail on my mainframe account, from Dean and from Peter Nyikos
(at the *original* USC) who feel I should apologize to Steve for what I said.

For those of you who are new to the group, or were out of town, or just
fell asleep and paged past the article in question, or whatever -- I laid into
Steve in response to one of his usual rants at me and challenged him to
"march his fat black ass down here" and say his garbage to me in person.
Some people out there understandably got a tad upset at my choice of words,
and I agree I could have phrased it better, even though I *did* mention
immediately following that that his color doesn't make any difference to me --
it's his attitude that earns my contempt.  Therefore, to y'all who might
have been upset at that screw-up on my part, I apologize.  To Steve, though,
I will NOT apologize -- save on one condition:  he comes down here to 
receive it in person.  If he wants my respect, he'll have to put forth some
effort to earn it.

I expect I'll have to explain myself to my superiors, but that's my problem,
and I don't anticipate anything major to come out of it -- they know me, and
they know my style, *and* they know I have enough sense to recognize when
I've made a mistake.  In the meantime, I'll be more careful with the 
choice of epithets.  (As a matter of fact, don't expect to see all that much
of me in this group for the next few days, because I'm spending 70% of
my time outside of work helping defend several clinics in my area of Houston
that are being targeted by Chaney's kindred souls like Randall Terry and
his OR traveling loonies.)

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
                  Support term limitations for politicians:
                 two terms -- one in office and one in jail.
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 13 Aug 1992 18:37:03 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <1992Aug13.153220.15332@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu ( ) writes:
|> In article <16drfkINNbst@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
|> 
|> > What happens to the woman's rights if we decide to award rights to a fetus?
|> 
|> All human females would have the right to life. 
|> 
But, apparently, not to medical care and procedures.

|> >Adrienne Regard
|> 
|> 
|> Doug Holtsinger
|> 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: DOD gets it wrong! (Surprised?)
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:33:24 GMT

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

Here's what I originally said:

>>> Definitely!  Their statements regarding their (grand)daughters are just a
>>> tad hypocritical; one would hope that they see the error of their ways and
>>> open the door for _all_ women rather than close it for their
>>> (grand)daughters.

>> No, Holtsinger, he said that all women deserve support of their right
>> to choose.

> And that's sexist, because he assumes that all women would actually 
> _want_ support of their right to an abortion, i.e. that all women are 
> pro-choice.  Not every woman _wants_ support for abortion rights;
> many women are pro-life.  By failing to recognize women as individuals
> who have a variety of opinions on abortion, he assumes that all women
> think alike on the issue of abortion, which is a sexist attitude.

When you get something wrong, Doug, you don't mess around do you?

The subjects of my statement were Bush and Quayle.  My statement expressed
the hope that they see the error of their ways and open the door for _all_
women rather than close it for their (grand)daughters.  Whether individual
women want to walk through that door or not is entirely their decision and
none of my business.

> If he said "all people deserve support of their right to discriminate
> against homosexuals", then wouldn't that wrongly assume that all people 
> would actually _want_ to discriminate against homosexuals?  Certainly,
> and it would also reveal himself as being homophobic.

Geez, I haven't had this much fun since Rainmuffin's 'stench of Jew lover'
statement!

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
 "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -- Benjamin Disraeli
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:30:58 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Aug16.184201.5867@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) said:
>In article <FOX.92Aug15221819@graphics.nyu.edu> 
>fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>
>>>> Since the fetus is not viable until the third trimester, if
>>>> the mother decides not to contribute to the well being of
>>>> the fetus that fetus will die.  Thus, at least until the
>>>> third trimester, abortion is not murder, even if a fetus
>>>> is a human being.
>
>>> In the vast majority of abortions, the fetus is either scraped
>>> out of the womb or vacuumed out, thus killing the fetus in the 
>>> process.  This nonsense about the woman not contributing to the
>>> "well being of the fetus" is a euphemism which helps people
>>> to avoid confronting the fact that abortion kills a human being. 
>
>> So you would be pro-choice if the technique was more humane?
>
>Killing an innocent child can never be done in a humane fashion. 

What does this have to do with abortion?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Republican position (Re: Why do they call themselves "pro-life"?
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:16:46 GMT

> = pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch) writes:
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Republican party now has as one of their priorities banning ALL
> abortions. As about 1% of all pregnancies in the US are ectopic, this
> would sentence millions of women to a painful and pointless death.
>
> PLEASE correct me if this is a mis-reading of the Republican platform! 

While we're at it... 

o does the Republican platform state that abortion is OK 
  in cases of rape/incest or not.  (start with a yes or no please)

o does anyone have any real data on the number of pro-choice Republicans?
  (Eg. what percentage would favor unrestricted 1st tri abortions?)

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion