HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:52:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.130133.15616@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Tsk, tsk, you should really follow threads more carefully before
>> you open your mouth.  In a reply to Edward Simmonds, Ms. Garvin
>> did indeed suggest that her estimates of the number of illegal 
>> abortions during the 19th century could be applied to today's
>> situation:
>> 
>>  +> The incidence of illegal abortion in 1860 has NOTHING to do with the 
>>  +> ruling in Roe v Wade in 1973.  Comparing medical practices across this 
>>  +> vast time is like comparing a slide rule with a supercomputer.  
>> 
>>    Actually, it has something to do with it.  
>> 
>>        <C0wM37.KE2.1@cs.cmu.edu>
>>         garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)

> Oh yes, that is correct.  That's what Susan said.  She is right
> in that the laws against abortion put in place in he 19th century
> were partly motivated by the dangerous nature of the procedure, and
> that the Roe v Wade decision may in part have been motivated by
> the fact that illegal abortions were far more dangerous in 1973 than
> legal abortions.  

Kaflowitz, look at the quote above.  Read it carefully.  I see
Ms. Garvin suggesting that the *incidence* of illegal abortion
in 1860 has "something to do" with the ruling in Roe v. Wade in
1973.  Look at the Subject line which Ms. Garvin wrote.  It mentions 
"incidence".  Throughout this entire thread, Ms. Garvin has not 
even mentioned the relative dangers of abortion in 1860 and 1973.   
That subject was not raised in this thread until now.  You're doing
a piss poor job of helping Ms. Garvin back-pedal from her earlier
suggestion. 

>Dean Kaflowitz


   "I'm only really good at judging colored semen contests, anyway."

                                      sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)

Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Bray Decision (Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:36:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.005658.19354@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> [...]
>
>SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
>
>Syllabus
>
>BRAY et al. v. ALEXANDRIA WOMEN'S HEALTH
>CLINIC et al.
>certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
>the fourth circuit
>No. 90-985.   Argued October 15, 1991-Reargued October 6, 1992-
>Decided January 13, 1993
>
> ...Respondents' claim that petitioners' opposition to
> abortion reflects an animus against women in general must be
> rejected.  The ``animus'' requirement demands at least a purpose that
> focuses upon women by reason of their sex, whereas the record
> indicates that petitioners' demonstrations are not directed specifically
> at women, but are intended to protect the victims of abortion, stop
> its practice, and reverse its legalization.  Opposition to abortion
> cannot reasonably be presumed to reflect a sex-based intent; there
> are common and respectable reasons for opposing abortion other than
> a derogatory view of women as a class.  This Court's prior decisions
> indicate that the disfavoring of abortion, although only women engage
> in the activity, is not ipso facto invidious discrimination against
> women as a class.  Pp.3-9.

Ah, so discriminatory effect is NOT, _ipso facto_, a violation of Equal
Protection.

Read it and weep, Mezias...

							- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57988 talk.politics.misc:69817 talk.religion.misc:27576 misc.legal:23316
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:04:53 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan23.221012.14456@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
> In article <14009@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <1993Jan19.162031.25785@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
# ## #mature choice then?
# ## 	What difference does it make?  I fail to see how it is the task of
# ## government to mandate "mature" behavior.
# ## 	It would certainly cut down on usenet volume if this were true...
# ## The_Doge
# #
# #Odd.  But liberals seem to have an unlimited list of reasons for the
# #government to mandate other forms of "mature" behavior -- like
# #prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals.
# #
# 	I have yet to see anyone of any political persuasion justify
# anti-discrimination legislation on the grounds of "maturity".  The 

You don't read USENET much, then.

# argument usually revolves around harm being done to the class of persons
# against whom the discrimination is directed.
# 	Vandalism, assault, and theft are all behaviors which could easily
# be classed as "immature", but that's hardly why they are baned.  I really
# don't see your point here.
# 
# The_Doge

My point is that liberals believe in mandating morals for some
causes, and then get all self-righteous and angry when conservatives
attempt to do the same thing.  I'm sick of liberal hypocrisy.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:48:19 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life begins at ...
 <1993Jan22.202321.15474@ncar.ucar.edu> <93023.075954KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1993Jan25.235837.1790@ncar.ucar.edu>

In article <1993Jan25.235837.1790@ncar.ucar.edu>, kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian
Kauffman) says:

>> I can tell you with certainty when a tree's 'life' begins, and when it ends.
>> Ditto for a human (though you won't agree. :)

>Similarly: at what point did "human life" begin?

I say at conception; I imagine you disagree with that.

>I'm not playing semantic games.  I'm simply asking you to pose an unambiguous
>question.  Perhaps I'm making some progress though.  You've just introduced
>the term "an individual's life".  Does this imply that you agree that
>human life, in general, is an ongoing continuum?

Yes.  And an individual life lasts from one person's conception until
his/her death.  I don't understand what's ambiguous about all of this.
(I'm asking you to be unambiguous about my ambiguousness... sorry.  :-)

>In summary, please form a well-posed question.  What is it you're asking?

I'm not sure I ever did pose a question; I think I objected to the idea that
life (meaning MY life, YOUR life, etc) does not have a beginning, which I
felt I was seeing in someone's post.  But anyway:

>Q1: when did life begin?
>Q2: when does an individual life begin?
>Q3: when does an individual's (ie. a person's) life begin?
>Q4: when during individual's life does the individual life become a "person"?

>It's all too common that someone will ask Q2, get an answer, and then carry
>on as if the answer was to Q4.  So what is "THE question" really asking?

In my opinion, question 2 and question 4 are (or should be) the same.  It's
a matter of what we decide a "person" is.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Mark, Learn to READ
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:40:56 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>] In article <1993Jan24.114141.9949@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>] 
>] >Two laws I've suggested would work well here: 1) Prosecute minorities
>] >as adults when they commit gang-related crimes.  2) For legal
>] >purposes, treat groups of protestors as ad hoc gangs.  This would put
>] >an end to the tactics of using children who are for all intents and
>] >purposes currently immune to legal recourse for their terroristic
>] >actions.
>] >
>] Just a minor point, but your limitation of prosecuting gang-related
>] crimes as adults to minorities strikes me as fairly racist. Are you
>] operating under the false impression that gang members are minorites?

>one who has not yet reached the age of consent is
>construed to be a 'minor' and you will notice that
>the construct of Gregory's post is in regards to
>prosecuting such 'minorities' as adults, NOT as CAUCASIANS!!!!

<Sigh> I love typos... :/ 
[PROOFread PROOFread PROOFread...]

>some days the urge to be PolitikallyKorrekt is just too
>irresistible, eh?

Uh... Er... Um...  Never mind... ;)
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------

                     Dallas Cowboys -- NFC Champions
                           The 'Boys are Back!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Silverio: offspring of Kaldis & Chaney
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:37:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.182707.16362@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <vc7ql58@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
> 
> >dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu writes:
> 
> >> I think I'll start posting there more often, and e-mail
> >> you my posts so that you can re-post them here in talk.abortion.
> >> How does that sound to you?  
> 
> > Well, Holtsie, it sounds like email harassment & terrorism to
> > me.  If you do any such thing, I'll be in contact with your
> > system administrators.  Consider that a warning.
> 
> OK, I promise that I'll e-mail you (and Garvin) my posts from 
> alt.flame.  I don't think I'll be able to accomodate anyone
> else, but you can always re-post them here if you think other
> people will be interested in them. 

As always, the Reverend Doug Holtsinger provides a mature,
intelligent response to someone asking that he not send them
email.  He throws a tantrum in classic "I'll show you"
style.

Way to go.  You're such a big boy now.

Dean Kaflowitz

"Yeah, bringing that Amazon enclave of women to America would just 
spoil everything.  I'd prefer to have them stay in the Amazon, 
so that I could go live them there." - Reverend Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: PAS or Post Abortion Syndrome
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:43:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.172920.12113@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <C0xtt6.F3u.1@cs.cmu.edu>, by garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):
>> How large?  How quickly? [is project Rachel growing -- ekr]
>> 
>> Oh, sorry, I forgot, this is Suzanne.  She won't have any actual
>> data to back up her claims.  Never mind.
>What do you care.  It's mere continued existance in cities across the country
>prove the existence of Post Abortion Syndrome.
I thought you "did science" Suzanne?
Haven't you ever heard of a "control group"?

Think about it. There are certainly people who experience mental disorders.
There are certainly people who have had abortions. If these two
are statistically independent, we would expect that there are
going to be people who experience mental problems and who have
had abortions. Some of these(engaging in the Post Hoc fallacy) will
probably believe that the two are related, whether they are or not.
Therefore the existence of Project Rachel proves exactly nothing.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:33:15 GMT

In <1993Jan21.040938.3418@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>In article <nyikos.727565273@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>}In <1993Jan19.004545.20253@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>}
>}>In article <nyikos.727394857@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

{Restoration of Galen's text:}

>>} I'd also like to mention that while
>>}the person who first used the remark avoids it now, and has apologized,
>>}people like you and our Reverend DoD and even Chaney himself dredge it up 
>>}at every possiblity.  

{end of restoration}

>}On the other hand, Patrick also flames people about all kinds of things
>}that happened in the past, like in the act of referring to Chaney
>}as "Dennis Hall".  And the relevant stuff on that happened well before
>}I joined this newsgroup.

>I do that too.  I refer to the person named as Dennis^H^H^H^H^H^HSteve
>Hall^H^H^H^HChaney, or didn't you notice?  I refer to junk that happened
>long before you joined.  You are not the Big Bang.  Deal with it.

I did, by restoring your text, thereby changing your *bon mot* into
a *mal mot*.  Funny, PatricKK pulled the same selective deletion.
Birds of a feather flock together, like minds think alike, and all that.

>}Patrick also insulted me repeatedly when all I did was e-mail him when
>}my netserver wasn't posting (and I had *no* idea he objected to being
>}e-mailed), just as I did you [Thanks again for posting those things for
>}me long long ago.], and diplomatically said I feel he owes Chaney an
>}apology.  He never apologized for any of that, nor for the countless
>}insults he has heaped on me since then.

>Sounds like "mama, he hit me first!"  Are you sure you are an adult?

Son, lots of things sound like whining to you, when a pro-lifer does
them.  Grow out of it.

>Nyikos, you are a damned idiot, and I may be too, but at least I can
>admit it.

You are not an idiot.  You are a clown with a high IQ, from the looks
of it.  I used to think you are a well-meaning clown, but you are
getting to look more and more like Batman's nemesis, the Joker, with
each flaming post.

Have you made any cracks about Suzanne's religious beliefs this year?

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Kodak's Official Policy (formerly: Want to adopt)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:49:09 GMT

In article <106596@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.214821.29561@Happy-Man.com> Irving_Wolfe@Happy-Man.com writes:
>>As a shareholder in Kodak, and hence (part of) the ultimate 
>>authority and employer at the company, I thought I should share my 
>>perspective on this.  
>>1.  Kodak should immediately fire any employee who criticizes it in
>>public, except that the reporting of a crime or suspected crime to
>>a law enforcement agency shall not constitute public criticism.
>Wanna join the Happy Fascists League of America?  Sheesh, man, one
>does not give up one's civil rights by virtue of employment.  If anyone
>who works for Kodak, from the chairwoman of the board down to the
>janitor at the truck dock, wants to stand up on a soapbox and proclaim
>that "Kodak sucks rocks", then have every right to do so -- and Kodak
>has no recourse.  (Assuming, of course, that the person on the soapbox
>isn't engaging in slander -- but then again, that applies to everyone,
>whether or not they work for Kodak.)
>
>What Kodak employees say on their own time and with their own resources is
>not the concern of Kodak -- they may not like it, in fact, they may really
>hate it -- but they can't touch it.  If any Kodak employee is disciplined
>in any way for exercising their 1st-Amendment rights, I would strongly
>recommend that they contact the ACLU.
>
>If anyone in Kodak's management is so brain-dead as to think they
>can restrict their employee's speech, then they deserve to be
>dragged through a protracted, nasty, bad-publicity-generating
>lawsuit that ends with a huge punitive fine.  One hopes that
>the folks running the company have more sense -- and more awareness
>of their employee's rights -- than that.
Huh? The First Amendment applies to what the government may restrict,
not to what private companies can restrict. I signed a non-disclosure
agreement when I took my current job, and could therefore quite
clearly lose my job for letting out proprietary information as part
of my "free speech." I also suspect I could lose my job for publicly
saying that one of our products(if we sold any) sucks rocks, since
it would be rather detrimental to our business.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: PHoney fails
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:19:34 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->I thought I could improve my credibility by refuting
->slanderous accusations against me

you could improve your credibility rating by telling
the truth.

i have seen no slanderous accusations against you. i
have seen no refutations from you, to anyone, on any
subject.

have you apologized to adrienne yet?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Want to adopt
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:36:53 GMT

<1993Jan23.040647.298@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
>> In article hammond@stimpy.serum.kodak.com (Kevin Hammond (x37516)) writes:
>>>My wife and I would like to adopt a baby.  We are in our very early 30s and
>>>are financially secure.  If you know of someone that is pregnant and would
>>>like to consider adoption, please put them in touch with us.  Of course 
>>>we would pay all of their legal and medical expenses.
>>>...<etc.>
>> 
>> Doesn't Kodak have a very strigent policy about company computer resources
>> being used for non-company purposes?
>
>For Pete's sake.  Kodak takes a very dim view of .signatures, posted every
>day attached to political opinion articles, in which the author claims to
>speak for Kodak and all it's subsidiaries.
>
>THAT is what got Dan Bredy in trouble.

Not according to the original response from Kodak.  It was using company
resources for non-company business.

>You just hate any suggestion that someone might WANT a baby,  don't you
>Keith.   That such a poster might cross your path is what disgusts you,
>doesn't it.
>
>For Mr. Hammond's information, I have passed on his original post to a
>family I know facing an untimely pregnancy right now, but of course I
>can't guarantee the outcome.

One wonders, Ms. "Send all the unwanted children to me!" Forgach, why you
haven't offered already to adopt this family's "untimely" addition?  Why
didn't you sign right up for it?


Gordon
-- 
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.
From: becka@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rebecca Lynn Sparling)
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: becka@leland.stanford.edu
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 10:56:28 GMT

In article <93025.203043KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.195007.11399@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu
>(Mark A. Cochran) says:
>
>>>According to both the Washington Post and the Washington Times,
>>>Clinton said that America should be a place where abortions are legal
>>>and safe, but rare.
>>>
>>He certainly did. Don't you think that's a good goal to shoot for?
>
>Is it? Is it really?
>
>If you don't believe that abortion is wrong, then why try to have less
>of them?  Heck, -more- abortions would bring down the birth rate and help
>with overpopulation, and it's safer than childbirth.  Right?

Is being sad, angry, etc wrong?  Not that I know of.  Is it
unfortunate?  Yes.  Would the world be a better place if no one was
ever sad or angry?  I think so.  But more sadness/anger would lead to
more suicides/murders, thus reucing population, wouldn't it?

Is war wrong?  Not according to most (in certain situations, of
course).  Is it necessary in certain situations?  It can be argued
that it is.  Does that make it good?  Not that I've ever heard.  Does
war reduce population?  Hell yes.

See how inane this sounds?  Just checking.
becka

-- 
************Golf courses are the moral equivalent of patricide!************
The probability of someone       ***  If you're not part of the solution
Watching you is proportional     ***  You're part of the precipatate.
To the stupidity of your action. ***  The Chemist's Truth from Steven Wright
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: When is a fetus not a person?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:05:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.212831.10859@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.164230.23254@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan24.052258.14213@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan24.012006.20871@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan23.182348.7135@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>>In article <C19H86.886@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>>>>>>All they want to do is say that if a woman goes 
>>>>>>into labor at 9 months and then decides while the baby is still inside 
>>>>>>her that she doesn't want it she can kill it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>as for your last statement, kindly show where any pro-choicer have
>>>>>made such a statement. Or retract it.
>>>>
>>>>Many Extremist pro-choicers have proudly announced that they support
>>>>abortion "at any time, for any reason", Mark. That certainly seems to
>>>>cover the hypothetical which Mr. Cobb presented.
>>>>
>>>No Kebbin. Work on your reading skills. He quite specifically is
>>>talking about an abortion performed during a full term labor.
>>
>>That falls under "at any time", does it not?
>>
>Back to living ini your fantasy world again, aren't you Kebbin? or is
>this just another attempt by you to argue in favor of abortion
>restrictions? Certainly, at any time means exactly that. 

Okay, so by logical deduction,

If

	Pro-choicer X supports the right of a woman to abort "at any time"

And

	"During labor" qualifies under "at any time"

Then

	Pro-choicer X supports the right of a woman to abort during labor

Correct?

A "yes" or "no" answer will suffice.

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion