HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Deliberate DODIE lies in nearly consecutive posts: Points?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 01:51:30 GMT

smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
->dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes to
->>How many times do I have to repeat myself?  I am undecided.
->>Try reading those three words slowly.  Hopefully it will sink in.

->Didn't DODIE just post his opposition to FOCA?

anyone can show that dodie contradicts
himself in separate posts. now try to find him
contradicting himself in the same post.

'I take no stand on specific legislation.'
<1992Oct31.185907.14514@ncsu.edu>

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Organization: NRL
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:24:41 GMT

Of course this discussion is a beautiful example of a pro-abortion 
diversionary tactic.  To make an analogy based upon the legal and social 
ramifications of slavery vs. abortion is folly.  The true analogy is much 
more sinister in how it portrays society's ability to tolerate gross 
inhumanity.  Slavery is just one example.

Read what Stephan Douglas had to say about "choice" and slavery.  That 
sugar-coated concept magically reared its head way back then.  It is, of 
course, a very powerful tool for swaying public opinion.  Just as the 
magician can force one's attention away from the guilty hand -   "Look in the 
hat, no child here!"

So, in fact, the analogy between slavery "pro-choicers" and abortion 
"pro-choicers" is pristine.  Even pro-aborts have to sleep at night.


- Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Waiting for an appology from Peter Ny
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 05:17:07 GMT

Mike A. McAngus (mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org) wrote:

: On alt.atheism Peter Nyikos also insulted me without justification.  I too am
: waiting for an appology.

After reading some more postings on alt.atheism, I have found that Peter Nyikos
asked that responses to the article in which he insulted me be emailed to him.
I am now looking for a copy of my response in which I called for an apology and
I will email it to him.

Sorry to jump in here when I don't qualify.
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Larry Margolis shows his expertise at innuendo, again
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:46:46 GMT

In <1992Dec28.063751.2980@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In <nyikos.725147807@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>In the meantime, I hope you can help me correct an entry in
>>Dr. Willke's _Abortion: Questions and Answers_.  Here it is, as
>>it appears on p. 108 of the Fourth edition.
>>
>>       Women who had one induced abortion had a 17.5% miscarriage
>>       rate in subsequent pregnancies, as compared to a 7.5%
>>       rate in a non-aborted group.
>>               Richarson & Dickson, "Effects of Legal Termination
>>         on Subsequent Pregnancy," _British Med. Jour., vol. 1,
>>         1976, pp. 1303-04.

>Perhaps I can help.  How about adding the following note:
>   Of course, it should be noted that is from a British journal from
>   16 years ago, and describes a problem with techniques that are probably
>   no longer used in the US.  There is *no* evidence of problems with
>   later childbearing among women who have an early abortion performed by
>   the most common method used *today* - vacuum aspiration.

Vacuum aspiration predates 1976.  As for the *no* evidence part, is there
*any* evidence that it IS different today? 

Can you give me a reference?  Please don't pull a Mark Cochran on me
("Any good medical journal."), nor a Nadja Adolf (go to the library and
dig it up yourself).

After all, you are the one who, by innuendo, have created the impression
that things are DIFFERENT today.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: about chasing people off the net
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:08:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.223948.20790@crd.ge.com> 
keegan@crd.ge.com writes:
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes to patrick:

>> Ask Siren if you can.  You can't?  Why not?  is her
>> address still a mystery to the net?  Why?  

> Siren wasn`t chased from the net.
> she, like many others, appeared to be unable to cope with
> her failures.

You're one ugly bastard, Keegan.  I never thought anyone
could stoop so low as to flame someone who's passed away.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Equal rights
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: 1 Jan 93 03:49:13 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1993Jan1.021250.25307@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
#In article <1276@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##In article <1992Dec31.180409.6025@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
##[deletions]
###BTW -- where's your support of a woman's right with the help of a
###willing SO to have a child without going through pregnancy?
##
##I just wanted to see this again.  I think it's the best response
##I've seen yet (closely followed by those who support a man's
##right to have an abortion) to those who would ignore biology
##in their quest for absolute equality.
#
#Um, Susan...
#This *is* possible...
#All you need isa surrogate mother, and an in vitro fertilization, and
#a little luck in the implantation...

Sorry, Mark, I've decided to be ridiculous about this.  Your reply
makes perfect sense, so I have to reject it.

You've involved a third person.  I want to see support for a woman's
right to have her biological child with only the help of a willing
SO.  Otherwise, things wouldn't be exactly equal.

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53511 alt.rush-limbaugh:12453
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:19:36 GMT

In article <30DEC92.16371945@vax.clarku.edu> 
hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) wrote:

>> The sad part 
>> is that the pro-aborts present as fact that thousands of women will surely 
>> die if abortion is outlawed.  There is nothing to support this whatsoever.

> There is plenty of evidence to support this.  Ever hear of Romania?  Check 
> out the October 1992 issue of the American Journal of Public Health (volume 
> 82, issue number 10).  An article titled "The Public Health Consequences of 
> Restricted Induced Abortion - Lessons From Romania" begins on page 1328.  
>
> 	"In the 23 years of its enforcement, the antiabortion law in Romania 
>	resulted in over 10,000 deaths of women from unsafe abortion". 

Ms. Sims fails to mention that Romania also banned contraceptives.
The authors of this article fail to determine whether Romania's
problems were actually caused by banning contraceptives.  Furthermore,
the authors fail to note that the experience in the United States with
anti-abortion laws before Roe v. Wade has been vastly different than
Romania's, with the CDC reporting 39 deaths from illegal abortion 
during 1972. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
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: Tue, 22 Dec 92 06:17:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.003824.21422@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.044415.25283@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <BzEy8s.7x8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher J Burian) writes:
>>
>>>It is kind of funny how it's "okay" to yank a baby out of the womb piece
>>>by piece, yet it's "wrong" to let a newborn die a gentle death from
>>>hypothermia.
>>>
>>>The subject begs further reflection and dialogue.
>>>
>>And it would be nice if you tried to find some facts before the next
>>time you post.
>>Anybody who describes hypothermia as a gentle death is doing a fine
>>job of displaying a severe case of ignorance.
>
>Then enlighten us, O Great One. Is the pain and gruesome violence of being
>hacked to bits comparable to slipping away into permanent hypothermic 
>unconsciousness? We thirst for knowledge.
>
Hypothermia is not a gentle way to die. Ask anybody who has seen it
happen. As for the "pain and gruesome violence" bit , can you show me
any people who have been so killed? I mean, other the Jeff Dalhmers
victims. 
You migth start by trying to present some evidence that a fetus is
capable of these reactions. I doubt you will though, since your
speciality is hyperbole and emotionalism, not facts.

--
                  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,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 05:15:12 GMT
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
: J H Woodyatt (bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com) wrote:
: : rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
: : # Besides, you could look at it in a completely economic way:  in societies
: : # where capital punishment is executed quickly and consistently for murder
: : # the number of murders that are thus prevented by this effective deterent
: : # greatly outnumber the number of executions.  Even in american, where
: : # capital punishment is in reality hardly a fact, the numbers are about
: : # equal.  Just ask any law enforcement official.  I was told directly by
: : # Gates' former assistant chief that this is true in LA.
: : Aaiiieee!!!
: : This guy gets my vote for Most Wiggy Conservative Screwhead on Usenet
: : for the month of December.
: Riddle me this, batman!  How many executions in the US since 1930?
: 3500.

Very nice, facts at hand. For bonus points, riddle me this: How many of the
3500 were innocent?

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

Liberty don't work as good in practice as it does in speeches.
	- Will Rogers
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Darcy's hypocrisy
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:08:44 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Dec29.032347.20117@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> [reporting obvious, joking forgeries to "the authorities"]
>
>Yeah, right, Susie. "I was only following orders". Where has that been
>heard before? Ever been to Nuremburg? Just out of curiosity, do you use
>a gas oven, or an electric?

Do you think that comparing Susan Garvin to a Nazi simply because she
followed her site rules regarding the reporting of forgery attempts is
really appropriate?  How would you rate joking about Nazi attempts at
genocide with joking about sexual abuse of children or joking about rape?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Date: 23 Dec 92 10:38:14 CST

In article <1992Dec22.174359.23172@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.180606.27847@cbnews.cb.att.com> 
>jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:
>
>> I argue for pro-choice on the basis that the mother is under no obligation
>> to provide support to the child.  This is independent of the question of
>> personhood.
>
>During most abortions, the child's right to bodily autonomy is 
>violated.  If the child is a person, then you cannot support 
>unrestricted abortion-on-demand using the notion of bodily 
>autonomy. 
>
Gee, Doug.  When are we going to see some evidence
from you that a fetus is _capable_ of bodily autonomy?

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Aaargh!  What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:46:41 GMT

In article <PATRICK.92Dec19090024@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
}In article <1992Dec19.005301.21226@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
}
}  gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes...
}  GJH>        TTTTTTTTTT    SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      K   K    CCCCCCC
}  GJH>            T         S             A       A      K  K     C
}  GJH>            T         S             A       A      K K      C
}  GJH>            T         SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      KK       C
}  GJH>            T                S      A       A      K K      C
}  GJH>            T                S      A       A      K  K     C
}  GJH>            T         SSSSSSSS      A       A      K   K    CCCCCCC
}
}
} Aaayyiiee!!!  Now *you're* even saying this!  :-)
}
} My GOiD, it's more of a plague than the GOiDS!  :-)
}
} Seriously though, what *does* T.S.A.K.C. stand for?  I have asked this
} question of James Keegan about a zillion times, and given the lack of an
} answer, you'd think that it was some sort of national secreat!  (Well, perhaps
} he did answer, but the message got clobbered when ZOOiD crashed, as it did
} several times during the occasions when I have asked him).
}
} Just curious...  Thanks.
}
}It's a TSAKC thing.  You wouldn't understand.  (But keep asking Keegan,
}though, if your BBS tends to crash when you ask him.  That can't be all bad
}for us.)
}
}--PLH, TSAKC original member, and I ain't saying nothing about what it means
}either... 

You probably shouldn't inquire about any group that would employ me
as a hitman.  Besides, if I told, I might have to go to work...


       TTTTTTTTTT    SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      K   K    CCCCCCC
           T         S             A       A      K  K     C
           T         S             A       A      K K      C
           T         SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      KK       C
           T                S      A       A      K K      C  
           T                S      A       A      K  K     C
           T         SSSSSSSS      A       A      K   K    CCCCCCC

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Aaargh! What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:50:19 GMT

In <1992Dec19.005301.21226@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes...
>GJH>        TTTTTTTTTT    SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      K   K    CCCCCCC
>GJH>            T         S             A       A      K  K     C
>GJH>            T         S             A       A      K K      C
>GJH>            T         SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      KK       C
>GJH>            T                S      A       A      K K      C
>GJH>            T                S      A       A      K  K     C
>GJH>            T         SSSSSSSS      A       A      K   K    CCCCCCC


>Aaayyiiee!!!  Now *you're* even saying this!  :-)

>My GOiD, it's more of a plague than the GOiDS!  :-)

Thanks for the chuckle, Will.  BTW what *does* GOiD stand for? 

>Seriously though, what *does* T.S.A.K.C. stand for?  I have asked this
>question of James Keegan about a zillion times, and given the lack of an
>answer, you'd think that it was some sort of national secreat!  (Well, perhaps
>he did answer, but the message got clobbered when ZOOiD crashed, as it did
>several times during the occasions when I have asked him).

Keep asking him, Will.  It'll be good for him to be on the receiving end
of questions asked ad infinitum, for a change.

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: about chasing people off the net
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:17:47 GMT

In article <hb32rxl@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
}gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}->dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
}->}You're one ugly bastard, Keegan.  I never thought anyone
}->}could stoop so low as to flame someone who's passed away. 
}
}no one has dodie. but someone has tried to use a
}person's death to unjustly flame someone else. do you
}know who that person is, dodie?
}
}the Siren persona who passed away is not the Siren
}personna PHoney referred to. even a fool like you
}should have been able to figure that out. but then,
}perhaps you did figure it out and just decided that
}lying was more important.
}
}->As opposed to one who would chastize another in her name.  Or one
}->who would taunt others because they are unable to contact her.
}
}not to worry galen. the Siren Phonet referred to, and
}the Sitren i referred to are not the same person whose
}death dodie tried to turn into a flame.
}
}see your therapist, dodie, really, before you climb up
}on a tower with a rifle and do some real damage.

Whooops.  Looks like I accused Peter of taunting folks with the
dead and Our Holy Father with foaming at the mouth aga incorrectly.
Sorry about that.  Not that they are incapable of such behavior,
mind you...


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 18:36:00 GMT

[.. from soc.singles ..]

In article <1993Jan02.174533.19580@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>In <C02Con.3vo@cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@cs.uiuc.edu writes:

>> I know several people who reject nearly every
>> aspect of the religion, except for the principle that they must marry
>> a jewish person.  I really would appreciate an explanation for this.

> Children.  No way in hell would any child of mine be raised Christian.

Why is that, Margolis?  What do you have against Christianity?  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Subject: Re: (Kevin Darcy) writes supposedly `specious' pro-choice arguments:
Organization: NRL
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:20:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.174801.2708@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
> In article <C014os.ID3@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) 
writes:
> >
> >In article <34636@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. 
> >Mezias) writes:
> >> In article <1992Dec25.033234.4258@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
> >> (Kevin Darcy) writes supposedly `specious' pro-choice arguments:
> >
> >
> >
> >You were doing great Kevin, until you bit the bait. ...hey distract 
> >people from the real issue - abortion kills children.
> >

> No Paul, abortion kills fetuses. Not the same thing as a child at all.

I see you like the game too.  Try this:  A fetus is a state of childhood, as is neonate, infant, toddler, prepubescent, etc., etc.

Isn't it curios that a 'wanted' unborn child will almost always be 
referred to as 'baby' by the expectant mother, but the soon to aborted 
child get's labelled 'fetus'?  So yes, of course you are right Mark, 
abortions only kill 'fetuses' since if they were children they would have 
been born.  Now I see your logic!


 
> >....The answer is simple - if you argue against them 
> >you legitimize them - raise them to the level worthy of reasoned debate.  
> >In other words Kevin, you've been had.
> >

> Speaking of feeble....


Please do....

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: (Kevin Darcy) writes supposedly `specious' pro-choice arguments:
Date: 29 Dec 92 12:32:43 CST

In article <C014os.ID3@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>
>In article <34636@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. 
>Mezias) writes:
>
>You were doing great Kevin, until you bit the bait.  
[...]
>In other words Kevin, you've been had.
>
Isn't it funny how this pro-forcer, at first glance,
thought Kevin was one of his own?

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 17:56:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.170437.15166@wdl.loral.com> 
bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> When are we going to see a definition of "bodily autonomy"
>> which successfully manages to distinguish between the born 
>> and the not-yet born? 

> When are you going to answer my question about why you refuse to take
> a position on legislation 

How many times do I have to repeat myself?  I am undecided.
Try reading those three words slowly.  Hopefully it will sink in.

Now earlier you claimed that I haven't presented any evidence 
in support of my opposition to Roe v. Wade.  Take a look at a 
recent article that I posted entitled, ``Blackmun calls the 
Roe v. Wade dividing line arbitrary''.  Read the article reference 
that I sent you.  In case you forget, it's called ``The Law
and History of Abortion: The Supreme Court Refuted'', in
the book _Abortion, Medicine, and the Law_, 1986.  Did you
actually read that article? 

As for the FOCA, try reading the article entitled, ``The
Constitutionality of the Freedom of Choice Act'', in the
Congressional Record, May 10, 1990, E 1485.  

> or pending court decisions that might
> restrict women's rights to abortion?

Such as?

> I have been asking this question of you for more than a month now, and
> you haven't even deigned to explicitly refuse to answer.

No, I've answered your question many times before in other threads.  
You have refused to accept my answer. 

>| J H Woodyatt              


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: an example of dodie's "honesty"
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 04:00:03 GMT

In article <zbz2d3k@rpi.edu> 
keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes
>to susan garvin:

>> Given your past statements on the FOCA, would it be 
>> a fair statement to say that 'Susan Garvin supports 
>> abortion legislation which Doug Holtsinger does not'?

> it would be as fair, and as dishonest

My statement was meant to illustrate that the term
'legislation' usually implies 'anti-abortion legislation',
and that any statement which failed to rely upon this
implication would be inherently 'dishonest'.  Glad we 
can agree.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women