HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:21:12 GMT

In article <24090@oasys.dt.navy.mil> 
bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Before Roe v. Wade was handed down, there was never any constitutional
>> right to kill a member of the human species.

> There isn't one now. There is a contitutional right to not be pregnant
> if a woman so desires. The removal of the z/e/f generally entails the
> death of same, but such is life. 

Roe v. Wade created a constitutional right to "terminate a pregnancy"
and it created a constitutional right to kill certain members of the 
human species. 

A viable fetus can often be removed alive.  But it's generally 
faster and cheaper to kill a viable fetus during an abortion, 
rather than to remove the fetus alive. 

No state may enact legislation which requires a physician 
to remove a viable fetus alive, because it would be unconstitutional 
under Roe.  Therefore Roe created a constitutional right to kill 
certain members of the human species.  

>Ron


Doug Holtsinger
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: DOS indulges her obsession with false accusations
Date: 29 Aug 92 13:34:02 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug28.211717.22840@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> Roe v. Wade does grant the right to abortion on demand throughout
> the term of pregnancy.  I've posted proof for that claim, which
> many people have ignored. 

This statement is not correct.  Doug has posted no proof,
but merely the speculative readings of some lawyers.  Events
subsequent to that speculation, clear statements within the
cases he quotes (statements which he deletes every time, but
which have been posted by Mr Greenfield), and state laws that
contradict his claim directly all show that reality does not
jibe with Doug's speculations and claims.

Dean Kaflowitz

Any ordinary man would have given it up by now
Any ordinary man wouldn't think twice
Taken his chances
Rolling the dice
Any ordinary man would have given it up by now.
-The Swanky Modes, with thanks to Dan King for the video
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: what if???
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:41:44 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <j1moody-010992232532@lafmac15.lafortune.lab.nd.edu>, j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:
> What if the human fetus developed on the outside of the mothers stomach,
> where everyone could see the eyes, ears, nose, etc. forming?
> 
> I'm not talking science here, I'm talking psychology.
> 
> We humans have a tendancy to disregard with ignorance things we cannot see.
> 
> How tragic future generations will view our blindsided stupidity.

If one generation began forming feti in such a manner, abortion would
be tres popular.  Who wants an ugly slimy little goo-thing hanging
on the *outside* of your body?  Moreover, natural abortions would
be more common.  An unprotected fetus is much more likely to die than
a protected one.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion:  My Views
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:18:08 GMT

In article <rylnb4q.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>> Then are you against legislating in the areas of homicide, 
>>>> rape, and theft?

>>> These are not necessairly moral issues.

>> If homicide, rape, and theft laws are not based upon morality,
>> then what are they based upon? 

> Self interest.

Newborn infants and the senile have no self-interests.  


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33515 alt.flame:12343
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: And Now, You're A Coatrack!! Was: without even being asked ....
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:17:55 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <2a9ac9b7.crud@crud.mn.org> trashman@crud.mn.org (Barry Schwartz) writes:

>In article <1992Aug15.224854.14033@csus.edu>
>        chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>It is a shame to lose one's mind.

It is a shame to lose one's self-image... eh trashman?

steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 23 Aug 92 20:57:18 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <nyikos.714433854@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
}In <1992Aug21.022504.11631@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

[about "pro-life" groups]

}>Legislation is always on the agenda.

}Ditto for at least some pro-choice organizations...

}Why this incessant either/or talk?  

It isn't incessant, see, I finished and you even got to respond.   :^)

Legislation is always part of the "pro-life" agenda.  If you try to ask 
them about that, they are quick to point out legislation isn't all they do, 
it is merely a facet.  It's as though there is this bond between 
legislation and killing that is assumed to exist.  I don't see it, I've 
never seen it, and try as I might to either cajole someone or piss off 
someone so bad into doing it, no one has ever even attempted to show 
that such a bond exists where abortion is concerned.  But legislation is 
always there -- beats me as to why.  Shoot, I might as well attribute it 
desire for control, at least I got a response this way.  

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions"
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 23:35:17 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  <1992Sep2.165717.3007@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Sep02.045611.18539@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
> >dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>
> >>>rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
> >>>> Only three or four doctors perform late-stage abortions,
> >>>> said Patricia Anderson with the National Abortion Federation.
> >>>> "There are a handful of third-trimester abortions that are
> >>>> done in instances of serious fetal anomalies or in the case
> >>>> of a pregnancy threatening a woman's life.  And only under
> >>>> those conditions," she said.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, Russ.  Happy now, Doug?
>
> >> Here's what the FAQ says about the "National Abortion Federation",
>
> > You asked for the claim to be supported.
>
> I didn't expect you to rely on what appears to be a pro-abortion
> organization for your claims.

If you have any contrary facts, please present them.  Don't expect an
ad-hominim attack to win you any points.

> > This is the third report
> > I've seen that says the same thing.
>
> > That you don't *like* one of the
> > sources is your problem;
>
> I was just observing that your source looks like a pro-abortion organization.

Facts is facts.

> > you can't claim that it has not been supported.
>
> But your source looks like a pro-abortion organization, which is hardly an
> unbiased source.

But it's supported.  Why do you keep lying and claim that it's not supported?

> > (Actually, you can't *honestly* claim it, which has never stopped
> > you before...)

And it didn't stop you this time.  You do realize, don't you, that every
time you make the claim that "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester
abortions" is unsupported in the same post which includes support for
this, you prove yourself to be a fool as well as a liar?

> Doug Holtsinger, wondering why Margolis relies on pro-abortion organizations
> for his information.

Larry Margolis, wondering why Dishonest Doug relies on the description
of a "pro-abort" regarding the organization, but then questions the
veracity of the organization's facts on the grounds that it's a
"pro-abortion organization".

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: aborting females
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 07:10:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.015209.22867@u.washington.edu>, jnorris@milton.u.washington.edu (Joel Norris) writes:
# I don't normally follow talk.abortion, but I was wondering about something
# and this seemed to be an appropriate place to ask it. How do pro-choice
# people out there feel about a woman aborting a female fetus because she
# wanted a boy instead? Does a woman's right to an abortion include the right
# to abort a female fetus because she would grow up to be a woman instead of
# a man? I don't know whether this happens in the U.S., but it happens in
# other countries.

Indeed.  And when abortion isn't readily available for such a purpose,
it's often female *CHILDREN* that are murdered because a boy is
considered more `valuable.'  Don't even get me started on how many
ADULT women are murdered simply because they have no `value.'  It's
not a pretty sight.

I have no moral qualms with recognizing a woman's right to abortion on
demand, even if that means that some will use it as a cheap means of
gender selection.


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"When people reached the last drop of their drinks, the face of Larry
Storch would seem to look out at them from the bottom, belch
contentedly and say, ``Now I am truly what I always was.  Pass the
corn nuts.''"
						     -- Larne Pekowsky
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Abortion" on a not-pregnant woman
Date: 1 Sep 92 07:53:50 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

> NNyikos

>How many abortion clinics have you seen the inside of?  

How many abortion clinics have YOU seen the inside of? And how manny women
do you know who have had abortions?  Any?

>Are you one of the people who
>chooses to blind himself to all stories about that reality besides the
>NOW-NARAL-PP-ACLU party line?  

I am "one of those people who chooses to" make my ownn damn decisions, rather
than leave them to people who believe Noah actually fit billions of animals
on onne 40 cubit boat, amonng other disingenuous ideas.

>I wonder: does a non-lethal dose of strychnine induce temporary blindness?

I wonder: does a non-lethal dose of xtianity induce permannent stupidity?
Actually, I don't wonder.

-- 
"A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: re: Sex Sacrifice, and the USA
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:40:17 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Sep1.142942.10219@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov writes:

>And the only 100% reliable way to ensure this is with the option of abortion.
>Sure there are precautions that she can take to reduce the chance of 
>pregnancy, but not a single one of them, including abstinence, is 100%
>reliable.                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Dan King

  Ahhhhh, Dan?  Could you maybe elaborate on this?  If abstinence = no inter-
course, and there's no technological or religious miracles involved, how is
this possible?  I mean, if the sperm and the egg don't get together...how
do they get together?

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller
TAMU '89 and '91
stuck working for UHouston
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Bailey for Congress Adds (Was: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 15:41:03 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Distribution: usa


In article <1992Sep2.183409.25366@pony.Ingres.COM> dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick) writes:

>On a slightly different note, did any of you see the Bailey for Congress
>advertisements on T.V.--the ones with the explicit color showing of aborted
>children?  Did any of you see the interview between Bailey and two others
>on CNN?  One man was suing because he felt this was inappropriate for the
>viewing of children, and humorously, he fed back the same arguement the
>liberals have used--"you can turn off the T.V. if you don't like it."

>Questions came out like, "Why are you singling out the Bailey campaign while
>you support gore on every other show on T.V.?"  Much waffling took place in
>reply.  A strongly pro-choice woman expressed anger saying that this was all
>inaccurate and that a one-inch fetus was blown up across the whole screen?
>Baily didn't say this, but I began to wonder if she had expected the network
>to shrink the screen...Bailey basically reaffirmed that these were real
>products of abortion.  What was on the screen in living color could not be
>refuted.  It was there for everyone to see.

I saw the Bailey adds along with Bailey, the feminist and the guy suing
on ABC's late night news show.  I agree that Bailey should have every
right to show these adds.  I strongly believe in the freedom of speech,
and I did not see anything in these adds that should be kept off TV.  The
only arguement I could see against these adds was the FCC ruling that 
they did not meet community standards.  I'd say that this is up in the
air and I guess a better idea of the community standards will come in 
November since it appeared Bailey based his whole campaign on these 
adds.  I actually believe the adds will lead to a backlash against 
Bailey, but who knows.  I think they are important because they do 
lead to a dialog regarding abortion.  Sure his adds appeared to play
with the truth some, but the other side will also have an opportunity
to rebuke Bailey's claims.
 
I got to wondering, if I were to run for Congress supporting free love,
should I be allowed to show love making on my commercials?  I would 
guess that would fail the FCC community standard guideline.  But I
can't really imagine Bailey defending my right to show my commercials.
Even though I strongly disagree with the content of the Bailey adds,
I would defend his right to show his adds.
 
Dan King
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33853 alt.flame:12395
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 28 Aug 92 02:59:24 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

the chaneyhall thing posting as
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
-> >-> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
-> >-> > We don't take a hold of one of our own people,
-> >-> > like you did Siren, and pluck them, feather by
-> >-> > feather, until they decide to go away forever.
-> >
-> >chaneyhall flames siren who has been off the net for a
-> >month!!!!  what's next for you, chaneyhall? will you
-> >begin to flame the names listed in the obituaries?
-> 
-> I didn't flame Siren. I said, and read it
-> closely......

	"We don't take a hold of one of our own people,
	like you did Siren, and pluck them, feather by
	feather, until they decide to go away forever."

-> Were you implying the word "pluck" referred to
-> Siren?  If you did, you were wrong.

it looks to me like you were doing the implying dearie.
don't you remember what you write, even when it's
included in the text of the post you're replying to? i
think you should seek professional help for both your
memory lapses and your misogyny.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors ... perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 21:24:00 GMT


   Doug Holtsinger's ongoing and unrelenting snivling about third
trimester abortions is a fraud.  Holtsinger would have us believe
that it is only certain abortions that he opposes rather than ALL
abortions.  There is not one single piece of evidence to indicate
that there is ANY circumstance under which he would be willing to
allow a woman to an elective abortion.  His continued focus on an
especially difficult aspect of abortion is done to divert us from
the fact that he opposes ALL elective abortions.  If I am somehow
in error on this, I wish Doug Holtsinger would tell us under what
circumstances he would allow a woman to an elective abortion.  If
he does not tell us what elective abortions he would allow, it is
obvious that is opposition to choice is NOT as narrow as he would
have us believe.  He is quite simply against choice.  Doug, I say
to you that one does not have to utter a lie to be a liar.  There
is no way that this will work.  By your continued doubletalk, you
have shown us what a liar you are.  You oppose elective abortion,
no matter when they might take place.  What you are, dear boy, is
a fraud - and an ineffective one at that!  The situation you face
is that you are out of your league in two ways.  First, the folks
that you debate are light years beyond you in smarts and in basic
honesty.  Secondly, your cause is unethical, un-American, facist,
cruel, anti-woman, anti-child, anti-life...and doomed.  With ones
like Chaney on your side, what kind of chance to win this war did
you think you had?
-- 
"A woman voting for Bush is like 
 a chicken voting for Colenol Sanders."

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge  (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:34:35 GMT

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = Susan "Thorn in Doug's Side" Garvin writes:
>>> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

[...]
>> No, you miss the point, Holtsinger.  Did you denounce Buchanan's
>> speech or didn't you?

>No, I didn't see Buchanan's speech.  But then again, I haven't
>denounced any of the extremists in the Democratic party.  

But then again, DOUG, no one in the Democratic party spewed hatred and
bigotry like Buchanan did.  See the difference?

>>> I'm glad you can finally acknowledge the 
>>> existence of extremists on the pro-choice side, even though I had 
>>> to give you a little prodding.  

>> Don't be so quick to take the credit, DOD.  I responded to
>> Steve Novak.  Do you think that you're Steve Novak now?

>No, whatever gave you that idea?  I just mentioned that I  
>was glad to see you denounce the extremists on your side for a
>change, instead of constantly attacking the pro-life extremists.  
>That's good work, keep it up. 

EVERYONE NOTICE: Doug, with his usual selective editing, cut out Susan's
words where she acknowledged I was an abortion rights extremist, which 
she admired, she was an extremist too in some areas, and she wondered
why Doug thought being an extremist was always wrong.

This is a public service to help you distinguish lies and distortion by the
Holtster from what real people post.

[re: Gloria Feldt quote...]

>>I see nothing extremist or reprehensible about this quote.

>That's going to make a lovely quote. 

This is blatant anti-Semitism, creep.  Retract it.  And admit you're a
christian, for christ's sake.  You're not fooling anyone.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34550 alt.abortion.inequity:3416
From: sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Life at Conception? [prev: Legal Questions]
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:14:03 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)


>That is exactly what I want.  I do consider it a person at conception and I
>think murder charges should be filed against any women who gets an abortion
>- and my wife has said the same thing...

[all the slams deleted]

Well... Did you slam me hard enough (redundantly)?

In my mind the debate over abortion comes down to whether or not the ____ is
a zybote/fetus or a child (read human) at conception (reference my article on
abortion in historical comparision in alt.abortion.inequity).  If it is not
human then you can do any bloody thing you want to it (please no slams from
animal lovers), but if it _is_ human then abortion is pre-meditated murder.

You can't take your argument half way just because it gets you to where you
want to be.  People that say the ____ is human at conception and don't consider
abortion murder are self-serving people comming up with incomplete arguments.

I do think that smoking and drinking during pregnancy should be illegal and
should be considered child abuse.

As for spontaneous miscarriges, etc.  There is no intent of wrong doing, there
is no "assistance" as someone mentioned so there is no crime - most crime does
come down to _intent_.

As for rape, incest, etc.,  Again - if you consider it life, then consider it
life - don't go half way...  It is incredibly regretful and unfortunate that the
life was created in such a way and I would feel for any person in such a position,
BUT IT IS STILL LIFE (HUMAN).



-- 
=================================================================
Sean P. Curley	(sean@Unify.Com)		Unify Corporation
Engineering Manager				Sacramento, CA.
=================================================================