HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  2 Sep 92 22:06:11 GMT

In <1992Sep1.050738.29035@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:

>In article <RJOHNSON.92Aug20133305@conus.shell.com> rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
>> >   But what _are_ legitimate reasons to get an abortion???
>>
>>	Situations in which the trauma of childbirth endangers the mother
>>	- unusual medical risk of carrying the child to term
>>
>>	Rape & Incest
>>	- I would agree that the trauma of these would compound if the
>>	  mother were to take the child to term, seriously impeding
>>	  recovery.  These are rare cases (especially if the rape victim
>>	  reports it immediately), though they are a mainstay of
>>	  abortion rights proponents.
>>
>>Some situations I would oppose abortion for:
>>
>>	Scheduling children -- "I don't want/can't afford a[nother] child
>>	right now." or "They would be only a year apart."
>>
>>	Birth control failure -- sorry, folks.

>OK, fine -- now:

>Exactly what requirements would you make women follow in order to qualify
>for your exceptions and what punishment would you mandate for women who
>lied to try to get an abortion?

Speaking not for myself (I have different views) but for the laws that
have hitherto passed (Utah, Louisiana) and some that did not (South 
Carolina.)

The punishment should fall on the abortionists for not asking when the
rape was reported to the police.

>Do you just take a woman's word?  (In other words, she goes into a clinic and
>says "I was raped" and they perform the abortion.)

>Do you require a police report?

Yes.  Or some way the abortionist can tell that a rape occurred.

>Do you require genetic tests to verify who the father actually is?

Not necessarily, a confession by the father will do.  South Carolina
requires abortionists to report to police all alleged incest cases 
brought to them.  Anyone want to guess how often this law is enforced?

>What about spousal rape?

If against the law, yes.

>What about child abuse?  (In other words, the child is pregnant by her father.)

See above.

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject: Re: Other Flip-Floppers on abortion
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 17:30:27 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Corp. Kingston NY

In article <1992Aug25.004530.25661@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.202720.837@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
>
>> A person who does not believe in governing on the basis
>> of religion might very well leave the abortion issue to each person's
>> concience as a personal moral religious issue.  
>
>Abortion is NOT a religious issue.  Abortion is a legal and moral issue.
>Homicide and robbery are morally wrong.  We don't leave homicide and 
>robbery to each person's moral conscience. 

However, whether or not abortion is homicide is, currently, a religious
issue. Tell me, do you also support legislation to outlaw the eating of beef
because there are Hindus who are American citizens and who regard cows as
sacred? What is your position on whether Native Americans should be allowed
to take peyote as part of religious rituals?

   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com

Knowledge, sir, should be free to all!
	-- Harry Mudd, "I, Mudd," stardate 4513.3
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 28 Aug 92 03:32:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
>Seems to me you simply do not wish to look at the obvious.
>Anti-homicide laws protect _you_, Galen, and there is no reason they
>should not protect ALL of us.   Including all of our children, no matter
>how young.

No matter _how_ young?  Or just to an arbitrary point YOU pick?

You pick conception, other people pick birth, viability, or some
point in between.  One could, I suppose, pick some point before
conception, believing it a duty to have as many children as possible,
to allow as many as possible new people to come into the world.

Merely that you've picked your arbitrary point to be conception 
hardly provides much of a convincing argument for me to blindly
accept your choice for myself.  While I have no objection to you
living according to what you believe is right for yourself, I have
not seen compelling reasons to accept your or anyone else's attempt
to impose those beliefs on me.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:28:24 GMT

In article <nyikos.714853495@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <1992Aug24.222123.25747@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
[text deleted]

##What I heard was that it was pneumonia caused by a septic abortion.
#
#What I heard was that it was pneumonia caused by vomit going back down
#the wrong way, said vomit being caused by the drugs she was taking
#recreationally.

What the death certificate says is this:  "septic abortion with
pneumonia."

Nyikos vile accusation originates with Willke and the NRLC.  The
coroner who performed the autopsy has stated publicly that he
does not believe Willke's fantasy about how Ms. Bell died, and
that Willke's fantasy is not based on medical evidence.

Some fools will continue to give voice to the lies of a twisted
old man, but the facts remain.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: We gotta do what we gotta do...  
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:08:20 GMT

decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:

>> Why didn't we all get immediate wind of Domino's efforts and start buying
>> their pizza?

> If you ever got wind of a Domino's pizza, you'd understand why
> nobody was buying.  It wasn't politics.  They make (or at least
> made - haven't had one in years) the worst pies going.

Domino's Pizza serves some of the most vile conglomerations of dough, cheese
and tomato sauce I've ever tasted.  We have a Pizza Hut Delivery just a
few doors down from the neighborhood Planned Parenthood, but most of our
business goes to the locally owned Hearthside Pizza, with homemade sauce
and real Wisconsin cheese.  They're kitty-corner from the PP.

ObAnti-Right-To-Lie:  Now that we've 'caught wind' of Domino's efforts, _I_
will make every effort to avoid their products and boo the Domino's Pizza
Racing Team at Indy car races. :-)

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: A DIRECT QUESTION FOR HOLTSINGER...
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:53:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.025331.6517@wdl.loral.com> 
bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:

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

>>>> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

>>> Since you complain about so many different aspects of abortion
>>> rights, are there ANY circumstances under which you would support
>>> a woman's right to choose.
 
>> I have expressed my support for overturning Roe v. Wade, so that
>> the voters of each state can decide the abortion issue.  I also
>> oppose the passage of the FOCA, because it would codify Roe into
>> national law.  Other than that, I have not yet taken a position
>> on legislation that would further restrict abortion beyond the
>> permissible restrictions set forth in Roe.

> He didn't ask you for your position on specific legislation.  We all
> want to know what legislation you'd like to see proposed.  

I don't feel obligated to answer "yes" or "no" because the 
pro-aborts have a habit of misrepresenting my views.  I don't 
believe the Constitution should grant the right to an abortion 
under any circumstances, but that does not mean that I would 
support legislation which banned abortions. 

>J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) + /h: j, Susan.
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:14:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.175039.20507@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:


One more article which proves that we are at war, folks. People like
Susan Garvin deserve nothing less than utter humiliation and the
desparity of seeing their abortion clinics being slammed shut by the
Human Life Amendment. 

I personally would like to see what bra-burning feminazi crazies like
Suzie Q, will say when it happens. The look on her face when abortion
doctors are being hauled to prison by the cops, is worth a million
dollars. In conservative estimates. 

I can't wait to see the look on her face when she has to resort to
Coat Hanger Terrorism, only to get her own ass hauled off to jail.

But then again, Suzie Q Garvin in prison, would be a gross insult to
the other cockroaches that already inhabit those jails. 

Really, Suzie Q, bitch and gripe all you want about coat hangers and
bra-burning anti-male feminism all you want. This is one person who
gets his entertainment by seeing assholes like you bitch and gripe and
squirm like the worms you are. 
Shall we see an encore response by you, to this article, or is your
head still so far up your ass that you can floss your own teeth with
your hair? 


Oh, and it's + /h:j, Susan.

In other words, you have to actually write your article as if it were
written by Dean Kaflowitz. In other words, FORGE FORGE FORGE, Suzie Q. 


=============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
=============================================================================
|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              |
=============================================================================
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. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.rape
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Nyikos Goes Under (WAS Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:40:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep03.170850.28846@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
> In  <nyikos.715471179@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> > In <1992Sep1.115604.23197@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaf
> >
> > >In article <nyikos.715287558@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu
> > >> In <f2dng-=.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> > >> >What ARE you going on about?  How many women decide at the last moment
> > >> >that they have changed their mind and are forcibly held to the table
> > >> >while the doctor performs the abortion?
> > >>
> > >> That is something only the abortionists know, and they aren't about
> > >> to tell you or me or any of the "million women" you talk about below.
> >
> > >In other words, you have nothing to go by and are just
> > >constructing bizarre scenarios in the dimly lit theater
> > >of your mind.
> >
> > And after I posted the case of the Fort Lauderdale doctor, you conveniently
> > forgot having said this, and ripped into me about the pointlessness of
> > my post.
> 
> The question was, "How many women decide at the last moment
> that they have changed their mind and are forcibly held to the table
> while the doctor performs the abortion?"  The story you posted was
> about a woman who *never* wanted an abortion, but was forcibly given one,
> and raped, by her husband.  It certainly seems pointless to me, or at
> least totally unrelated to the question.  What was the point?
Thank you, Larry.  When I answered his article I had also not yet
read the article to which he refered, since it spooled later on our
system, so I got it confused with another story he told that was
similarly a red herring.  But I agree with your point
entirely and also would like to add, for possibly the thousandth
time for me, that pro-choice means being in favor of allowing
women to decide for themselves whether or not to get abortions,
and that forcing someone to have an abortion is equally as
reprehensible as forcing someone to not have an abortion.

Dean Kaflowitz


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: The Mad Bomber and the Pregnancy Simulator Scenario
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 19:22:47 GMT

In <1992Aug28.234341.29204@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.200124.1597@eco.twg.com>, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
># 
># So, what does everyone think? Is this as stoopid as "The Red Button
># Scenario" or "Diary of an Unborn"? I do try...

>Almost.  The Palo Alto judge rates it a 9 -- that's `stooooooooopid'
>(with 9 `o's) -- on the 10 point scale, with the Red Button Scenario
>receiving the full 10 points.

>The Mad Bomber needs to be played by Robin Williams and guy with the
>pregnancy simulator absolutely *has* to be William Hurt.

I've never understood why Robin Williams is so popular. I don't think
he's the least bit funny. Since it's my stoopid analogy, I'm going
to have to insist that the Mad Bomber be played by Tim Curry.

William Hurt would be fine as the man in the pregnancy simulator.

>(Someone send me `Diary of an Unborn' -- this I haven't seen yet.)

The gist of it is "I could have had [all sorts of wonderful 
experiences], but I didn't. Why? Because my Mommy aborted me."

>-- 
>J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Re: The myth of "unrestricted abortion on demand throughout pregnancy"
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 14:08:15 GMT

In article <nyikos.715044364@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
|> 
|> "Killer" Tiller of Wichita says he will do them when the fetus is
|> deformed (regardless of how healthy the woman is) without spelling
|> out what "deformed" means.  Luhra Tivis says she saw a "very
|> high percentage" that were not deformed at all.
|> 

What qualifications does Luhra Tivis have that make her
opinion as to what is/is not a fetal deformity valid?

-- 
--Bruce

"Truth is ultimately a philosophical concept,...,
 and standards of truth are adequate for practical
 purposes if they are substantially more reliable 
 then the system undergoing evaluation"
				C. E. Metz
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:41:44 GMT

In article <BtMJyw.IFx.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#In article <1992Aug27.013022.2371@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
##People have constitutional ``rights'', governments don't.  
#
#That's not true, DOD.  Try reading the constitution.  

Actually, that is true.  Certain learned people reminded me of
this (thanks).  I stand corrected.

Susan
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Should abortionists be allowed to purposely kill viable fetuses?
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:41:24 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


In article <1992Aug31.200508.12731@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

dh>Consider the following scenario.  A woman who got pregnant from a rape
dh>is seeking an abortion.  She had to wait until the third trimester to
dh>save up enough money to pay for the abortion.  The woman can choose
dh>among two abortion procedures.  Procedure A kills the viable fetus.
dh>Procedure B has a good chance of producing a live fetus.  Both procedures
dh>are equally safe for the woman.  The woman wants procedure A because
dh>she doesn't want the rapist's child to haunt her memory.  Under Roe 
dh>and Doe, this type of abortion is legal, because it would preserve 
dh>the woman's emotional health.  The woman asks the abortionist to use 
dh>procedure A.  If you were the abortionist, what would you do? 

I have no clue what I would personally do.  I'll have to go through about
10 or so years of school and then a couple of years intern ship before I
could really come up with an answer.  

However, after reading a few of Peter Nyikos' posts, I can guess what
an abortionist in Peter's alternate reality would do.  The abortionist
would strap the woman down to a table, and while using no anesthesia
he would slowly carve up the fetus in as many pieces as possible, but
not too many, 'cause he would want the woman to see as many of the 
appendages as possible.  He would then take the dismembered but still
cute as a button little tyke and force the woman to watch him smear
the blood of the little one on the altar he has specially built in 
his abortuary to Satan.  He would use that in his attempt to convince
the woman that she should join his Satan cult only because he then 
knows he will get all the free nooky he wants from her.  

What ya think, Peter, did I get close to what you believe the 
evil abortionist would do?
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: Fodder for DOD's .sig (Was: Pro-Choice Challenge)
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.
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 23:34:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.224010.29434@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com
writes:

[King Danny and Galen's comments appreciated and deleted]

>You people are making fun of Doug for being an idiot, but I think it's
>incredibly offensive how he's making fun of the Jewish religion.  If
>someone put down Catholics in the same way Doug is putting down Jews,
>he would be the first one screaming about it.


Since DOD edited my comments for his .sig, maybe you didn't see
the question that I've asked him repeatedly.  I keep asking
him what it is about Judaism that bothers him, and he keeps
deleting the question and not answering it.  This is not the
only instance of Holtsinger implying that there is something
wrong with Judaism and its beliefs.  I think that he's a bigot.
H
The comments he makes about the quotes are offensive.  I stand
by my statement that I see nothing extreme or despicable about
the quote, and I think that Galen and Dan sincerely share my
feelings.  I hope that Holtsinger adds their names, and many
more - at least that way we'll have an easy way to tell who is
anti-Semitic around here - their names won't be on his list.

Susan

)



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.religion.computers
From: ward@math.psu.edu (Brian Ward)
Subject: Re: Mixed emotions...
Followup-To: alt.religion.computers
Organization: The Society for Green Traffic Lights
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:20:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.114051.7600@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
|sed 's/ //g'
|RealMen use rn!
|[..]
|RealMen Use vi!

damnStraight. now, do this, boys and girls:

:map t / ^Mx~h

(replace the first "t" with whatever. remap your "h" and die a horrible
deserving death.)

|and at such a faster rate. yet reading news on this account is
|so much more convenient than the rn newsreader on nyx (how confusing

becomes mock drieux style:

|andAtSuchAFasterRate. YetReadingNewsOnThisAccountIs
|soMuchMoreConvenientThanTheRnNewsreaderOnNyx(howConfusing

if you type a lot of "t"s..

That is, only if you AreSoFuckingStupidAsToNotKnowHowToTypeLikeThis.

--
Dude, we totally melvined Death!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:54:37 GMT

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

>And abortion is not a matter of "trust", it's a matter of what's "right".  

Of course it is!  If abortion isn't right for you, don't have one!

>Doug Holtsinger

                       -rocker
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "And maybe flog the little b*tch to teach her a lesson"
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:17:48 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>> = (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

[re: Suzanne Forgach...]

>-> She's always said that she wants to punish the
>-> abortionist, not the woman involved.

>i suppose that's not as bad as some anti-choicers who
>want to punish the women.

I don't agree.  This is more Forgach/pro-"life" bullshit.

Why, if you're anti-abortion, should the woman get off the hook?
If you're a pro-life fanatic, you should believe that the woman has
entered into a conspiracy to commit murder.  If not, then why is 
the doctor getting arrested?

I'll tell you why: the last remaining shred of credibility of
"pro-life" would disappear like girls meeting Chaney if the one 
MAKING the decision, the woman, would be imprisoned. 

In other words, this is Pro-Life Hypocrisy at its worst.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: 1-900-fone-sex  (was: myths about PP or something)
Date: 1 Sep 92 08:06:47 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

>> Ken Bell
> Airplane Boy

>>Theory--: Talking about sex IS sex. (I love it when I enter into my 
>>irresponsible moments!)

>Yeah, that's the only way Kathi Mills could ever get it. If talking
>about sex IS sex, that is. 

Heh, I must be the Virgin Mary then!  *snicker*

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

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion