HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 12 Aug 92 12:13:12 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <Bsuyt7.B9M@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (You know who) writes:
> [Looks like it's slice and dice time again...]
> 
> In article <1992Aug12.000213.19610@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug11.022942.11142@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
> >>
> >>Look. This is ridiculous -- it sounds like the whole `Have you stopped
> >>beating your wife?' trap. It's ugly and it's abusive.
> >
> >Ugly? Abusive? You want to know about ugly and abusive? Try having a
> >local Pat.Humphrey lying about your account data, lying and telling
> >people you posted as other people (Hall, Vincent, and whatever else he
> >wants to invent later on); other folks playing pranks on you and
> >nagging your system administrators with claims that you posted as
> >someone else, for 2 months straight

I sent email to Stephen Hall...Chaney's system administrator to find
out just what the truth of the matter was.  His system administrator
called me on the telephone to tell me that the infamous Dennis Hall
account was indeed the account of Stephen Chaney, that Chaney had
his posting privileges suspended for ten days for some prank
or other involving that account, and that his system administrators
were upset with Chaney, not Scott Roby and certainly not Patrick
Humphrey, because Chaney called the head of the entire computing
department to gripe, who in turn had the sys admins write him a
report about the matter when the sys admins were trying to keep
it simple and easy and not let it get blown out of proportion.

By the way, for those who don't remember the Dennis Hall postings,
Chaney posted as Dennis Hall and spewed a lot of hateful,
supposedly pro-choice garbage that was a mockery of what
pro-choice means.  His purpose was, of course, to discredit
the pro-choice viewpoint.  What is most curious, aside from the
fact that "Hall" and Chaney both misspell the exact same
words and refered to Usenet as UNIX (registered trademark of
AT&T), is that "Hall" wrote with exactly the same tone and
attitude as Chaney, and the hateful extremism that Chaney
thought would discredit pro-choice is present in almost all
of Chaney's "pro-life" postings.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:30:02 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> If Lyman said "All people deserve support for their right to discriminate
>>> against homosexuals", then that statement would carry a very objectionable
>>> implication that all people would _want_ to discriminate against
>>> homosexuals. 

>> On the other hand, I could say, "Doug Holtsinger deserves to be spanked until
>> his cheeks are bright pink."  That's not implying in the least that, "Doug
>> Holtsinger _wants_ to be spanked until his cheeks are bright pink," is it?

> Nobody believes that they should have a right to receive an unwanted
> spanking.

Your baroquely ineffectual attempt at a rejoinder betrays your paucity of wit.

> Chris Lyman is a sexist for believing that all women think alike on 
> the issue of abortion.

Your attempt at self-immolation is completely bereft of panache.

How many times should one repeat a lie before it becomes truth?

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 17:50:50 GMT

In article <Aug11.061333.37399@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Steven Arnold) writes:
#In article <1992Aug08.044418.80542@cs.cmu.edu>, garvin+@cs.cmu.edu
 (Susan Garvin) writes:
## In article <Aug08.040829.32076@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
##sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Steven Arnold) writes:
##
## 
## #	The "medical reasons" you cite no doubt include things like being
## #stressed because the poor girl can't fit into her new swimming suit. 
## #How can we make that poor woman suffer such mental agony?  How can we
## #force her not to kill her own unborn child?  What kind of monsters are
## #we, anyway?
#
## Fuck off, Arnold.
#
#	Charmed, I'm sure.

It was not a compliment, idiot.

##  I've read these claims of yours one too many
## times.  
#
#	Have you, really?

Yes, and you seem incapable of doing anything other than
spouting hatred toward women.

## Provide some proof of your ridiculous, misogynist claims or shut
## up about them.  
#
#	I already have.  Read FOCA sometime.  Consider the broad sense in which
#the court interpreted "health" in Doe v. Bolton.  That's pretty close to proof.
#	Copies of FOCA available on request (also can be found in group FAQ,
#part II, from which I quote directly).


It's too bad that you can't read, Arnold.  If you could, you would
know that I provided the copy of the FOCA that appears in the FAQ.

Neither you nor your pal Holtsinger nor anyone else has provided
any proof whatsoever that health is interpreted as you say it
is.   I understand this failure - one cannot prove something
that is not true.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Dodge _THIS_...
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:19:46 GMT

Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <1992Aug17.175424.3036@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>> 1) To have abortion rights, you must have privacy as currently
>> (and absurdly) interpreted. (Hereby said as privacy "".)

>Or, we could pass the FOCA and have abortion rights as a basic right.

Nah, then it would still be changeable by a simple majority in the House
and Senate.  Likely to die given political change.

The most secure way is the amend the Constitution...and even that isn't
safe if enough people in enough states decide to repeal the amendment.
But, it is unlikely it could be repealed...

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern)
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Organization: NCAR/UCAR
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:24:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.014910.16390@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
> 
> Funny, how Planned Parenthood supplies, besides birth control,
> absolutely nothing that would reduce the number of abortion customers
> they can get. Such as:

OK, I'll repost under this heading the information I posted previously
which I copied from the "Planned Parenthood Fact Book" published by Planned 
Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM). 

> 1) Crisis pregnancy assistance:
>  - Planned Parenthood has a negative (read: black hole) record on
>    providing favorable conditions for women to carry babies to term
>    if it proves the least bit convenient.

The PP fact book lists among the services of PPRM:
Pregnancy:  Pregnancy testing; counseling and referrals for all options,
including prenatal care, adoption, and abortion (except for clinics which
are funded with government money); "Smart Start" (first three months 
prenatal care); pregnancy sizing and prenatal vitamins.

> 2) Housing:
>  - Poor, money-strapped pro-lifers do more to provide pre and
>    postnatal support (including homes) for pregnant women. PP does
>    no such thing. 

"The mission of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains is to make
life better by giving health care that is lower cost and easy to obtain
for women and men of all ages and income levels."

> 3) Alternatives: 
>  - Planned Parenthood? Alternatives to abortion? Do the letters
>    N, O, T and ! (guess which order) have any meaning?  

See above, under (1).

> 4) Sex Education: 
>  - After the talk about birth control, does PP ever tell the students
>    that abstinence is as EQUAL an option as sex? Once again, the
>    letters N, O, T and ! (and !!!) bear great resemblance here, to the
>    answer to this question. (And no, PatricKKK Harumphrey, I did not
>    assert abstinence > sex. I said that according to PP, abstinence
>    != option worth teaching.) 

The PP fact book has, under the heading "Special Information for
Teens:"

"When you choose to have sex, you are making an important decision.
If you ever think you are being 'forced into it' or 'talked into it'
when you really don't want to, please talk to someone in the clinic
about this."

"It is safer for your health to use birth control than it is for you
to get pregnant.  It is even safer for you not to have sex at all."

The section on birth control methods also has a subsection on
abstinence.  It lists these advantages:  it doesn't hurt your health
in any way, you don't need an exam to use it, it doesn't cost anything
and is always available, when you use it, you don't get pregnant or
get STDs, and most religions approve of it.  It lists these disadvantages:
You can get pregnant or get an STD if you don't use it.

-- 
/\                Ilana Stern DoD#009  ilana@ncar.ucar.edu 
  \_][ <--NCAR       Colorado...is totally rectangular.
      \_Boulder______________________________________________________Kansas__
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 04:58:31 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  <1992Aug21.005556.21762@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.224050.42197@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >> I was wondering if there would be any interest in a moderated abortion
> >> newsgroup.
> >>
> >> What do people think of the idea?
>
> > I think you've *got* to be kidding.  Steve Chaney is one of the biggest
> > flamers on t.a.
>
> Fine, then remove his name from the list of suggested moderaters
> and give me your thoughts on the idea.

What about proven lies?  Could the moderators just send the same answer
that was provided before to someone who constantly submits untruths,
instead of posting the lies?  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:29:37 GMT

> = dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Killing an innocent child can never be done in a humane fashion. 
>> Now, what does your statement have to do with abortion?
> I don't know, I guess that all depends on the meaning of the word ``child''.  

I guess.  In my country, the use of the word "child" normally requires 
some resemblance to "an infant" or "a (born) boy or girl before puberty".
For example, people generally don't use the word "child" when referring 
to zygotes, the only common exception being rabid pro-lifers with a spin 
to doctor.

>Here's my new .sig, pro-aborts, I hope you like it as much as the
>old one: ;-)
>
>  "I am opposed to abortion." -- Bill Clinton

The world can be a very confusing place when you can't fathom the
difference between "pro-abortion" and "pro-choice".

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Other Flip-Floppers on abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:05:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.232906.15040@csus.edu> 
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

> Now, how's about those Demo flippers: 
>
> 1) Ted Kennedy (flipped from pro-life to pro-choice)
> 2) Jesse Jackson (yet another flipper on the issue, used to say legal
> abortion over the right to privacy was like legalizing slavery:
> no personhood because the act's done in private) 
> 3) Present VP candidate Al Gore, who used to vote 84% pro-life, is now
> pro-choice totally. 
> 4) That governor of Ohio who got beat badly in the last election.  
> 5) Buddy Roemer, LA. Beat badly. Didn't even make the primary. 
>
> Hey, folks! You can contribute with others, here! 

I think you might be able to add Bill Clinton to your list of
Democrats who have changed their positions on abortion.  Here's
what my local paper had to say about Clinton's changing stance 
on abortion:

  "Clinton's aides, meanwhile, also have used the word evolution
   to describe their candidate's shift in views on abortion.  As
   governor of Arkansas, Clinton declared that ``I am opposed to
   abortion.''  In 1989, he signed state legislation requiring
   parental notification.  As a candidate for president, Clinton
   has moved to a more clear-cut abortion-rights position.  He
   said he would not veto Medicaid funding of abortions for poor
   women." 

   The Raleigh News and Observer, Monday, August 17, 1992


It appears that the radical pro-abortionists in the Democratic party 
have forced Mr. Clinton to embrace a minority-held position. 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:43:51 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  <opka2nc@fido.asd.sgi.com>  cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>
> In article <1992Aug19.210947.26366@spdc.ti.com>, serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com write
>
> |How can you call a pregnancy that occured as a direct result of
> |the animal desires of a man and a woman "forced pregnancy".

Actually, I engage in sex from a purely intellectual desire to discover
new ways of helping my partner achieve ever higher levels of ecstasy.
Perhaps you're confused by all the grunting and squealing, though.  :-)

> Most posters to talk.abortion find your approach to unwanted
> pregnancy utterly unrealistic.  Most people prefer to concentrate
> on other ways of coping, such as:
>     improved sex education
>     improved access to birth control
>     other ways to prevent the unwanted pregnancy in the 1st place
>     helping women get into circumstances where they're more
>          likely to consider having children

Does research into improved methods of birth control fall under
"other ways"?  If not, I think it should be added to your list.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: A comment on RvW
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:16:33 GMT

In article <l8ifgaINNgmg@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

> The concept that I am putting forth is that what we value and protect
> (often useing the label "personhood") is sentient beings. 

But then sentient animals would deserve protection from being killed, 
just like sentient humans. 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Chaney pulls self up from Clefty's level
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:41:37 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug17.171730.1392@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> In article <1992Aug15.232609.30286@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
> >In  <1992Aug15.195905.7786@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chan
> >> In article <lefty-120892143620@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) write
> >> >
> >> >Arguments?  You say you have _arguments_?
> >>
> >> I'm known for them.
> >
> >Not around here.
>
> Go check the "Who will... the single mother?" thread.

Around here (talk.abortion), you're known for being an asshole with
no concept of logic and an extremely weak grasp of reality.  A single
coherent post is not sufficient to change your reputation.  Perhaps if
you were to make a habit of it, then you'd be known for that rather
than for running around a computer room with your arms out, making
airplane noises, and chasing an imaginary $100 bill.

> Oh, and check out my obliteration of Mark the Irate Cough Man.

"Obliteration"?  See above ("extremely weak grasp of reality").

> Memorialize the man; I'm about to burn him white-hot when I switch
> from flames to nuclear fusion to plasma energy.

Maybe you should crosspost to alt.flame and rec.arts.startrek, and
leave talk.abortion out of it.

> You might hence be surprised to see me abandoning other flame wars, to
> concentrate on roasting Kaufman.

I'd much rather be surprised by seeing you stop flaming and start to
make sense.

> Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
> scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...

(and lose the .sig...)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:24:43 CST
 <1992Aug20.174314.4087@ncsu.edu> <1992Aug20.210650.9651@spdc.ti.com>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug20.210650.9651@spdc.ti.com>, serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.174314.4087@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug20.142025.4064@spdc.ti.com> 
>>serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>>
>>> If you are not willing to accept responsibility for the possible failure
>>> of contraception, then yes, you should consider celibacy.  
>>
>>Refraining from sexual intercourse does not mean refraining from sex, 
>>since there's always oral sex, anal sex, and mutual masturbation, among 
>>other forms of sex.  There's a wide variety of possibilities besides
>>the missionary position.  Please don't confuse "sexual intercourse"
>>with "sex". 
>>
> 
>  idiots

Nasty!
 
>  If we were talking about other forms of sex and not intercourse we 
>  wouldn't have to worry about an abortion now would we?

Actually, to be quite honest, there was a girl in my sexuality class who 
was conceived without her parents having intercourse at all.  They were
just naked, and fooling around.  Sometimes it isn't as hard as you'd think
to get pregnant I guess.  

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Chaney lies about PP (was:Re: The Nurturing Network)
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:23:57 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Aug19.014910.16390@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <5688@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>>Which is why everyone should go to Planned Parenthood,which provides pre-natal
>>care as well as abortion (as well as a host of gynecological services) :-).

>Funny, how Planned Parenthood supplies, besides birth control,
>absolutely nothing that would reduce the number of abortion customers
>they can get. Such as:

>1) Crisis pregnancy assistance:
> - Planned Parenthood has a negative (read: black hole) record on
>   providing favorable conditions for women to carry babies to term
>   if it proves the least bit convenient.

Absolutely untrue.  Women are always counseled on both options.  If you
don't believe me, send a "plant" into the San Jose PP and see for yourself.
I guess you're upset that we don't smack them on the nose with a bible and
strap them down, Clockwork Orange style, to watch Silent Scream?


>2) Housing:
> - Poor, money-strapped pro-lifers do more to provide pre and
>   postnatal support (including homes) for pregnant women. PP does
>   no such thing. 

No such thing?  Untrue!  Pre-natal care, like everything else at PP, is 
sliding scale for poor women.  References are given for homes and agencies 
that can provide further help.


>3) Alternatives: 
> - Planned Parenthood? Alternatives to abortion? Do the letters
>   N, O, T and ! (guess which order) have any meaning?  

Flat out lie!  Call them up and find out for yourself!


>4) Sex Education: 
> - After the talk about birth control, does PP ever tell the students
>   that abstinence is as EQUAL an option as sex? Once again, the
>   letters N, O, T and ! (and !!!) bear great resemblance here, to the
>   answer to this question. (And no, PatricKKK Harumphrey, I did not
>   assert abstinence > sex. I said that according to PP, abstinence
>   != option worth teaching.) 

Complete bullshit!  SJPP offers a course for teens called "How to Say 'No' To
Sex" which helps kids in a non-judgemental way to get out of situations they
feel they are not ready for.  PP opposes the EXCLUSIVE use of teaching ONLY
abstinence.  So far you're batting .000.  Get a clue.


>The list goes on and on. 

...of examples of your complete disregard for truth.  Please get educated
from something other than propaganda your leaders spoon-feed you.

--Teddi
----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)----------------
Way to go, San Jose City Council!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: DOES THE NUMBER THIRTEEN RING A BELL?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 00:22:26 GMT


"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude except as a punishment
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall
exist within the United States."

   Is it possible to enslave a person more than to force a woman,
against her will, to bear young?  I suppose if we imposed emiment
domain principles on some needed internal organ inside a suitable
but unwilling donor, that would be close.  But the idea of making
a woman use her body in a life-threatening manner may be the most
conspicuous violations of a Constitutional protection that I have
ever seen.
-- 
   "We're going to have the best educated American people in the
world."                              Dan Quayle - Sept. 21, 1988
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:22:06 GMT

From article <1992Aug21.040932.17501@watson.ibm.com>, by Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>:
> In  <1992Aug20.223004.13850@noao.edu>  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>
>> Natural Family Planning is AS effective in avoiding pregnancy as that
>> popular contraceptive the "pill" for married regular participants in sex.
> 
> That's comparing the "ideal" numbers, right?  

Not at all.


> And it turns out to be a lot
> less effective if you compare the "real life" numbers, right?

Not at all.

Shall I post the studies and statistics again?


>> Even moreso for a pre-teenage virgin.
> 
> Even *prayer* is effective in avoiding pregnancy for virgins.  :-)

That was my point.  NFP is very effective for frequent participants in
sex, and even moreso for a pre-teenage virgin.  There is no need to hand
her a condom as my, ahem, esteemed correspondant had implied.


> Larry Margolis

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion