HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: about chasing people off the net
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: 31 Dec 92 00:04:55 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Oh, for Dean's sake.

The Siren was, as Jim pointed out, more than one person.  The person
who posted most recently to t.a. (the same person who wrote the
letter about Chaney, the same person who wrote the "T.A. Guide,"
the same person who argued for late term restrictions) was the
person who wrote the letter advising us of Emily's death.  Emily
was a member of the Siren collective, but not the one who Jim was
flaming.

I had thought this was clear from the letter that Beth Bartley
posted, but I see it wasn't.  

The Siren member who you all are discussing now is alive, as far
as I know.  (I'll preserve her/his anonymity - if you she/he
had wanted you to know who he/she was, you would know.)  I
would imagine that his/her request that her/his name not be
used in flame wars still stands.  I would further imagine that
he/she would be upset by people flaming each other using
Emily's death as a weapon.

I mourn Emily's death, and I hope for the best for the survivors.

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
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: Fri, 25 Dec 92 19:57:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.211554.16596@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <lefty-181292163351@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>>In article <1gs5tdINN88o@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>, ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith
>>Ramsay) wrote:
>>> 
>>> Browsing through this newsgroup, I think the discussion would go
>>> better in general if posters spent less time trying to prove each
>>> other to be bad characters, no?
>>
>>You're new here, aren't you?
>
>But apparently not so new that he can't recognize how counter-productive
>all this ad hominem garbage tends to get.

Kevin, does the following ring a bell with you?

"Learn to tell the difference between a hypothetical situation and a fantasy,
schmuck."

Things that make you go "Hmmm......"
--
=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???=
=This .signature file will be in Chicago, Illinois, USA From 12/26/92 until   =
=01/03/92.  Have you given *YOUR* .signature a vacation from the net lately???=
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Progress with Mr. Holtsinger
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:02:25 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
# 
# > What I want him to answer, and I have been repeatedly asking him in
# > various forms is:
# 
# I've noticed that after I post a response to your questions, 
# you'll come back with brand new questions which you dishonestly
# label as the "old" questions.  Other times you'll keep repeating
# a question which I've already answered, and accuse me of not
# answering it.

Actually, I keep asking the question in various forms until you answer
the question I've framed in my mind.  Fortunately, this time I made
some progress.

# > Why are you undecided on every pending piece of
# > legislation that might restrict women's abortion rights,
# > yet you can find a way to decide about FOCA?
# 
# The FOCA is unconstitutional--Congress is using the FOCA 
# to define fundamental Constitutional rights.  Congress 
# does not have that authority, because the federal government
# can only exercise powers relinquished by the states or
# the people. 

I wouldn't be so quick to declare the FOCA unconstitutional.  I can
easily see how the Supreme Court could declare it constitutional.
But, this is not relevant to the question I was asking.  I already
know why you oppose FOCA.

# My indecision regarding state abortion legislation has 
# absolutely nothing to do with the constitutionality of
# abortion legislation.  I'm mostly concerned about the 
# effects of legislation on the health and welfare of
# women and children. 

Here, we make some progress.  I now know that you are entirely
unconcerned with the constitutionality of state level abortion
legislation -- that it plays no part in your indecision.

I suppose I am to believe that your indecision stems from your
uncertainty regarding the effects of legislation on the health and
welfare of women (it's not clear what you mean by `children' -- are
you referring to pregnant children, or fetuses?).  This is fairly
curious, since your rhetoric is peppered liberally with anti-abortion
sentiment and lexicon, but I won't ask about it.

# > If Roe vs. Wade was so bad, how would you like to see the
# > Supreme Court act to change the status quo?
# 
# I would like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn 
# Roe v. Wade.

Further progress.

-----

Actually, Mr. Holtsinger has sent me email with even more detailed
positions, and I am awaiting his permission to post it.  He gives his
reasons for why he wants Roe overturned.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``Man has not a single right which is
| J H Woodyatt              |  the product of anything but might.''
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |                           -- Mark Twain
+---------------------------+  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: like the GROUP kevin darcy
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: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 06:06:28 GMT

In article <+kz2ndm@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>in an item that might be of interest to mark cochran,
>
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>->gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>->>Er, you expressed some idea about what happens in hospitals, and 
>->>to what degree risk can be established, etc.  
>
>->I expressed no ABSOLUTE degrees, Galen.
>
>see the word in uppercase, mark?
>

Yup, sure do...
I wonder if any of my old school chums are in the psych dept at UMMC,
and if so, how they'd feel about putting a 72 hour hold on Kebbin.
Might be important to find out if he's getting dangerous...

--
                  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: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:37:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.205111.8857@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.190837.4545@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <1992Dec28.020955.13604@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>In the case in question,
>>>namely abortion, you are arguing in favor of legislation regarding
>>>abortion
>>
>>Mark, you must be confused.  Kevin keeps telling us that he is *not*
>>arguing in favor of legislation.  (I'm afraid that I'm confused as well,
>>since it sure looks to me like he's arguing for legislation, but there's
>>probably a fine semantic point that we're overlooking.)
>
>No doubt. The only thing I've been able to see is that Kevin is
>*constantly* arguing the side of logislation, without ever actually
>*proposing* any specific legislation. He apparently sees a difference
>between arguing in favor of legislation, and supporting that same
>legislation.

I do not argue "in favor of" abortion restrictions, Mark. That would imply 
that I preferred their existence over their non-existence. I do not.

I argue only AGAINST the grandiose claims of Pro-choice Absolutism, i.e. the 
belief that the government has absolutely NO right to intervene in ANY aspect 
of abortion. Pro-choice Absolutism, its laughability from an academic point of 
view, its tendency to lobotomize its adherents, and its tendency to viciously 
polarize the issue, is IMO more of a threat to the respectability, credibility 
and ultimately the viability of the pro-choice movement than anything in the 
wildest dreams of pro-life strategists. Hence it is the main focus of my 
abortion-issue concerns.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
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: Tue, 29 Dec 92 22:35:42 GMT

In article <C01HI5.MGB@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.174213.2484@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>> In article <C015K3.Ip4@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) 
>writes:
>
>> >In article <1992Dec28.115856.25977@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com 
>(Muriel 
>> >Nelson) writes:
>> >
>> >....
>
>> >
>> >> 
>> >
>> >Guess what Muriel? There were fewer abortion related deaths back then 
>than 
>> >now -
>
>> Care to provide evidence to support this? Here, try this:
>> Total morbidity for D&C and Suction abortions: 8.8 complications per
>> 1000 abortions, or 0.88%.
>> Total mortality for D&C and suction abortions: 4.0 per 100,000
>> abortions, or 0.004%.
>> Compare that to complication rates as high as 20% from illegal
>> abortions.
>> (Source: _Maternal Child Care_ 14th edition,
>> Reeder/Mastroianni/Martin)
>> 
>> >try a different line of rhetoric.  I know, the standard, "back alley, 
>coat 
>> >hanger" image is so juicy and hard to resist by pro-aborts.  Keeps 
>those 
>> >undecided folks shaking in their shoes. 
> Kind of like making up lies is so attractive to pro-forcers? (You
somehow managed to lose this line, so I put it back in for you)

>Gee Mark why don't you also provide me with statistics on the average 
>number of pimples on a baboons butt? Its nice to see that abortionists are 

Certainly monkey-boy. Bend over and count them.

>so good that the number of mothers spared per child executed is high.  
>Unfortunately, as you so deftly ignore, the total number of women killed 
>is greater now that abortion is so ubiquitous.  But I know, its not the 
>women you care about, its the amazing effeciency and precision of todays 
>techniques.

There are no children killed in abortion monkey-boy, only fetuses.
But, sicne you are still claiming that there are more women killed now
by abortions then there were in the illegal days, lets us do some very
simple math...
1.4 million abortions were performed in 1990.
.004% of the women involved died.
----
A little simple math, and we find that this amounts to 56 women dying
in 1990 from the abortions.
Now we compare that the the thousands that died from illegal
abortions.
Somehow, your claim seems to be just so much hot air.
Why doesn't that suprise anybody, monkey-boy?

--
                  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.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Meet Operation Rescue
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:27:52 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <tvg9qu0@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:

[my post of article by OR victim in Wichita]

#Thank you for posting that. 

You're welcome.  It's one of the few written descriptions by
a patient that I've seen published.

#It jives with what I've seen at clinic defenses.  The OR people
#go a little insane.  They scream, rave, shout obscenities, and
#behave like anything but the Christians they claim to be.  Should
#raving lunatics be allowed to take away our rights?
#
#	NO!

My favorite OR quote is this response to Scott Safier, "I'm
*pro-LOVE*, asshole."

I would imagine that these fanatics are going to try something
outrageous next month.  I hope they don't succeed in killing
anyone this time.

#Should police be allowed to enforce the law inconsistently, and
#be lenient to the side their mayor agrees with politically, as
#they were in Wichita?  
#
#	NO!

I think that Buffalo was the best possible response to Wichita.
The police in Buffalo enforced the law, regardless of the wishes
of their mayor.  

I'm grateful that Ms. Doe told her story.  I think that more people
need to hear what it's like when the police conspire with
terrorists to deprive people of their rights.  One reason I
was so glad when Bush was defeated is that we won't have to 
worry about having a Justice Department that files amicus
briefs in favor of such actions any more.

Susan
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: Fri, 1 Jan 93 05:48:45 GMT

In article <1hv08cINNl9c@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.203903.4000@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>|> In article <1hssu5INN270@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>|> 
>|> >Since you're so "pro-choice," how about letting Jeffery Dahmer eat you for
>|> >dinner if he wants to.  Hey, it's his body.
>|>
>|> If Jeff Dahmer wants to eat his own body, I would not care, nor would
>|> I do anything to stop him. I wouldn't care to watch, but I would
>|> certainly agree that he should be allowed to eat himself if he wishes.
>|> You, on the other hand, seem to have a difficulttime comprehending the
>|> difference between what he does to his *own* body, and what is done to
>|> *another persons* body.
>|> Try not to post without engaging yoru brain.
>
>If Patricia Ireland wants to abort her own body, I would not care, nor would
>I do anything to stop her. I wouldn't care to watch, but I would
>certainly agree that she should be allowed to abort herself if she wishes.
>You, on the other hand, seem to have a difficulttime comprehending the
>difference between what you do to your *own* body, and what is done to
>*another persons* body.

Of course, you manage to overlook the fact that a fetus is not a
person. If you are now going to claim that it is, please be prepared
to provide some proof. But judging from your above efforts, I suspect
you are incapable of doing more then parroting.

>Try not to post without engaging yoru brain, or at least your spelling checker.
>
Oh lookie, a spelling flame. How exciting! Wanna try .sig flames too?
I'll go first....

>-- 
>// John Townsend             "I thought I was      Legal Conversion Engineering
>// Mead Data Central          wrong once, but         johnt@skibum.meaddata.com
>// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.      I was mistaken."         ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
>// Miamisburg, OH  45342            8-}                          (513) 865-7250 

You certainly were mistaken. Over and over and over and over....

--
                  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,can.politics
From: aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: University of Victoria
Date: 27 Dec 92 00:57:39 GMT

nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:

>There are health complications in all pregnancies, ranging from the
>trivial (stretch marks) to the serious (post-natal depression, for
>example - clinical depression can be aggravated by depression) to
>the deadly.  Who gets to decide where to draw the line?  You, or the
>woman and her physician?  You've already said you're not qualified . . .

>Is even a physician fully qualified to make this decision?  What about
>the doctor who believes a pregnancy to be too dangerous, but the woman
>feels it's worth the risk and decides to go through with it, with little
>or no health effects?  Or the depressive woman who might (yes, might)
>have her depression aggravated enough to make her suicidal.  Can you
>quantify that risk?  Can even a physician do so?

>Because all pregnancies involve some risk.  Who decides if this risk
>is acceptable?  Are you going to decide that abortion is acceptable
>if the risk of the mother dying is higher than a certain percentage?
>Remember, the risk is never 0, and seldom 100%!  So, what's an
>acceptable percentage?

>So if a physician agrees to perform an abortion, you won't object?
>(Guess what, this is what happens in EVERY medical abortion - the
>physician agrees that the abortion is justified . . .)

Physicians should be qualified to make some measure of the
relative (health) risks of continuing a pregnancy.
(However, much of this is a matter of professional *opinion*
and will always bea subject of dispute.)

I have to disagree that the pregnant woman or her physician 
alone have the right to terminate the life of the child. 
The child has a right to life (and quality of life) that must
be balanced with the mother's right to life (and quality of
life).

The child has *no* advocate and no voice -- yet faces grave 
consequences.  I would hope that the mother (and father)
is taking the child's interests into consideration, but
there is no guarantee.  The physician only receives a fee
by performing the abortion and is, therefore, in no position
to be impartial.

Therefore, the *only* way to provide an independent 
ajudication of these rights and do the best for all considered 
is to have the state provide an impartial tribunal to 
evaluate the situation.
Because there may be some urgency in the medical condition,
these procedures should procede fairly rapidly.

A IDLER
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: information for dodie
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 05:32:17 GMT

dodie, i think you might want to visit the restrooms of
a train station in a middle- large-sized city.
name-flaming susan garvin with "shit" is so, well
uncreative. you might, if you follow my advice, you'll
learn some new words you can use. just read anything 
written on the wall.don't worry; no one will
tell mum on you. plus, those new words will provide all
those who laugh at you with more merriment.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: We're still working on it.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:56:27 GMT

In article <1103@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

   In article <1992Dec23.011900.6792@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
   >Patrick "get yer fat black ass down here" Humphrey writes:

   Using quotes around that phrase implies that Patrick actually
   said that.  I don't believe he did.  I've asked Holtsinger repeatedly
   to provide the article number for the quote, but he doesn't reply.
   I think it's because the only person who has said "get yer
   fat black ass down here" in talk.abortion is named Doug Holtsinger.

You noticed that, too...of course, after almost five months of bleating
about it, he *did* finally produce the right reference and admit to his
error.  (I sent him a little congratulatory note via FidoNet -- wait until
he sees that.  It'll be more fun than a one-armed man trying to set the time
on his digital watch. :-)

--PLH, there's no off-season for shenanigans


--
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. 
         What will our "leaders" do once the Constitution is gone --
                   and we STILL have a drug problem???
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:21:32 GMT

In <1992Dec18.073137.15851@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

><1992Dec18.003658.13726@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann):
>>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes: >
>>>>Don't be stupid.   When the child trips of her own accord and is hanging
>>>>over the cliff, all she has to do is answer "yes" or "no" to God's question:
>>>>"Do you want Me to save you?"   He will not _force_ His saving grace on
>>>>someone who prefers suicide.
>>> 
>>> Then if that's the case, kindly stop forcing your odious religion
>>> on us good-hearted atheists.  Sheesh.
>>
>>Sure, if you stop forcing death on unborn children.

>OK.  All us Atheists will now stop forcing death on unborn children.
>Since there are no such things as 'unborn children' it should be pretty
>easy to do.  Now then, can we get back to the abortion issue?

Check out _The Secret Life of the Unborn Child_, by Thomas Verny and
John Kelly, Delta Books, 1988.  I'll be sending your ex-girfriend Beth
some excerpts from this book.  Since the authors buy into the Dominick
Purpura theory of timing of consciousness, she should have a great time
with the book, and maybe even order it for herself.  It comes in 
paperback for just over $10.

Also by Thomas Verny (with Pamela Weintraub): _Nurturing the Unborn Child_.
Sorry, I don't have any publisher info on this one.

>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
>Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
									  ^^^^
Beth, did you give Gordon permission to call himself your "ex-boytoy" as 
well as your ex-boyfriend?

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion