HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Will the Randall Terriers start to bite?
Summary: What will the active anti-aborts do now?
Keywords: Abortion,Randall Terry
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:54:57 GMT

The next Big Event in the never-ending controvesy over abortion will be
the passage of the FOCA. If (actually when) then happens, what will the
active anti-aborts do? Will they reveal their true colors and embark on a
compaign of bombing and burning abortion clinics? Will they begin the
overt harassment of doctors and other medical personel who partake in
abortions?

How will the Randall Terriers bark when RU-486 becomes legally available?
WIll their bark turn to bites?

My guess is that these Christian folks will burn a Klinic for Krist and
claim all the while that God himself ordered it.

Conan the Libertarian

-- 
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"

Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 17:38:22 -0500 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 20-Jan-93 Re: Roe v. Wade is
unrestri.. by Doug Holtsinger@eceyv.nc 
> Many children are killed in the womb at a late-stage because 
> they're mentally retarded.  Here's one woman suggesting that
> she should have the right to have a mentally retarded child
> executed in her womb: 
>  
>   "I'm suggesting we lift the veil of privacy and professionalism
>    to explore issues of heath care, abortion, and the right to
>    choose death, as well as life, for our genetically disabled
>    fetuses."
>  
>    -- Rayna Rapp, in _The Choices We Made_, discussing her
>       abortion of a Down's syndrome child in the 21st week 
>       of pregnancy. 

  After the second trimester, is it safer for the mother to wait until
the deformed child is born to kill it?  If so, then I, like Mr.
Holtsinger, would favor infanticide over a third trimester abortion.  

For Voluntary Motherhood,
Michael Loomis

ps Is there sufficient data to be able to compare the relative safety of
third trimester abortion to childbirth?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Different Point
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:04:20 GMT

Doug Holtsinger (dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan17.161536.18622@news.columbia.edu>
: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
: >mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
: >>Rebecca Lynn Sparling (becka@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
:
: >>> These unhealthy, drug-addicted nonwhite babies are not the kind
: >>> of babies most people want, which, although unfortunate, is also
: >>> reality.

This remark was taken out of context.  If the paragraph that had preceeded it 
was left, then the following discussion would be meaningless.  (Sure wish I had
the disk space to save all the postings for situations like this)

:
: >> RACIST.
: 
: > Why is she a racist for stating other people's opinions? 
: 
: She's helping to promote a horribly bigoted stereotype that
: nonwhite, poor pregnant women are nothing more than drug addicts.  
: It doesn't matter whether she's trying to state other people's 
: opinions.  
: 
: 
: ---
: Doug Holtsinger
: 'finger dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu' for documentation which shows that 
: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy.
-- 
Mike McAngus
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:39:54 GMT

casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes: >
datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes: >>
craig: >>>
>
>>>Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of
>>>an individual to use public money for their children to attend the
>>>school private or public of their choice

This is the logical fallacy of amphiboly, where you redefine how
the term "choice" is used in the two separate issues.  In one,
it is a question of bodily auotonomy; in the other, a question
of tax subsidies.  Thus, the two issues are unrelated, but 
you attempt to set them up equally by playing on the word
"choice."

>There is a case in 
>court now where a football coach was fired for placing his son in a private
>school rather than a public school.  When asked for the reason, the Coach
>replied that he wanted his son to be taught from a christian perspective on
>values.  His supervisor told him that was what his evenings were for.  How many people would be in favor of a christanity clinic at every school where a
>counselor would discuss with each student if christanity was right for that 
>student and would provide detailed information on where to go if the student
>wanted to become a christian.  (Answer: its illegal in some states for a
>teacher to have a closed bible on their desk).  I understand why we don't have
>such clinics and agree that they are not needed.  But there is a difference in
>the way we treat the seperation of the State and one Value, and the way that
>we tread the seperation of the State and the other value.

We do have such clinics.  They are called "churches," and anyone
interested in Christianity can attend one.

Have you forgotten about the First Amendment, that Congress shall
uphold NO religion?  That means no funding for religious indoctrination
in tax-supported schools.  But neither can it interfere with any
religion, which is why you may worship in any Church you wish.
*** OR NOT WORSHIP ***

There is no such thing as "separation of State and Value."  The
issue is "Church," not "Value."  Or are you claiming that evolution
is a religion?  Can you show that evolution is a religion rather
than a science?  Can you define the difference between religion
and science?


-- 
Maddi Hausmann                       |  The Truth is still The Truth, forsooth 
madhaus@netcom.com                   |  Even if believing It you refuse
Centigram Communications Corp        |  Disproof's uncouth, refuting moot
San Jose California  408/428-3553    |  A Fundie's brain is dead.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Life begins at ...
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 09:24:55 GMT

Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes ...
>Of course not.  The whole idea I don't understand is that an individual's
>life doesn't begin, but it ends.  You can't use multiple definitions of 'life'
>at once: first to mean an individual life, and second to mean life in general
>(which has no beginning and no ending).  One has clear beginnings and endings,
>the other does not.

It may be that the term "individual life" is incorrect.  It is more
likely that the claiming that such has a clear beginning is incorrect.

Just what is an "individual life" supposed to be?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:49:28 GMT

In <lm16jfINNe66@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:


>Well.  It's been a whole three days since I last said something on this
>newsgroup, and now I see 500 articles.  To warm up, I shall jump into
>this thread with a reply to Steve Adams' post, and who knows?  Maybe I'll
>even throw in an unprovoked personal attack on him as well, to show I'm
>part o' the gang.  :)

>To start, Suzanne Forgach, that spirited pro-life debater, said that
>people who grieve the --------- 	 are now advocating the murder of our
>most fragile.  To which Steve replies:

>In article <root.727561852@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>
>>Come on Suzanne.  The difference is that the Holocaust was a decision of 
>>one man, who ignored everyone's opinion, that took millions of lives.  
>>Abortion is a decision made by a millions of persons, individually.
>>
>>While the scales may be the same (ie millions), the ideas and concepts
>>behind the two are totally different.  One is the imposition of a single
>>person's will on the entire population, the other is individual will.

>Entirely true, Steve.  However, as palatable as abortion may be when
>compared to the --------- , to Suzanne (and myself for the time being),
>it is still one person taking the life of another, without the latter's
>consent, or dare I say, choice.

Of course, it would never have anything to do with your desire to try
and make your arguments appear to have greater weight, by dragging in
an unrelated blot on humanity, would it?

If you find yourself unable to come up with a cogent argument without
irrelevant analogies, why not simply admit it?

>Paul Brinkley
>brinkley@cs.utexas.edu
>Pro-Thought Advocate
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Then why not take your own advice?

Grouch


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: What's behind these Keegan-Garvin-Adrienne "forgery" posts
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:45:24 GMT

In <C10L1z.5so.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <1993Jan16.140337.12688@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>#-# Sigh.  I didn't read all of PHoney's last spewing of bilge.
>#-# I kind of figured that the other nice people here would
>#-# repost the best (worst?) of it, anyway.
>#-# 
>#-# He really is something, isn't he?  I'd say that now makes
>#-# two apologies he owes Adrienne.
>#
>#at least two. i think i'll continue to focus on the
>#first one, the false accusation of forgery. as long
>#as that's a live issue, people will find it easy to
>#judge his credibility.

>I think that people will find it easy to judge his
>credibility anyway, but his refusal to apologize 
>accompanied by his demands for other people to
>apologize does illustrate his hypocrisy rather well.

I have apologized for lots of things, and Chaney is the only
person I really leaned on in telling him to apologize.

I do not apologize for things I have not done.  The reason
Susan Garvin and Keegan are so insistent that I apologize
is that they can then say forevermore that I admitted to libeling
Adrienne.  

That goes for you, too, Adrienne.  You weren't born yesterday,
and neither was I.

Having once been burned by the old SAT trap, I am not about to
fall into an infinitely worse one.

Actually, I am so naive that I only figured this out a month after
all these bandwidth-wasting repetitions were going full blast.  What
saved me from the trap was my basic sense of honesty and fair play.
I know I am innocent of charging Adrienne with forgery.  I *am*
guilty of having suggested the possibility that Adrienne was guilty
of it.  But that is all.

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:34:13 GMT

In <C1FxF5.L4I@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:

>For those who are personally opposed to abortion, but don't want to force their
>opinions on anyone, and are thus "pro-choice", could you please explain why you
>are against abortion, if not for the reason that it causes the death of an 
>unborn child, and if it causes the death of an innocent human, why do you act 
>in favor of allowing that to continue?

Well, I don't oppose it, I simply think that it would be far better to
discover some 100% fool-proof methods of birth control, other than
abstention (sorry, DOD, beat you to it). Abortion, IMHO since I'm
not likely to ever undergo the process, is not in the same ballpark
as having a root canal (now this I do know about). Ergo, lets put
some R&D into finding that 100% method.

>MAC

Grouch.
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:34:56 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <C19r6E.EAA.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <nyikos.727627950@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>#In <CORWIN+.93Jan19102546@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
>[everything deleted except what I felt like keeping]
>##Of course, Susan Garvin never called Reverend Holtsinger 
>##Doug "yer fat black ass" Holtsinger, so you would be
>##basing your idiocy on nothing.
>#
>#Did Susan put you up to this?

Susan, for the benefit of readers, is at CMU just as Scott Safier is.

>#She altered an attribution line so it would read that way.  

>No, I didn't. 

Then what gremlin did it for you?  Surely you remember when I highlighted
the words "yer fat black ass" in the middle of Doug Holtsinger's name, 
and said that for you to insert them reveals the depths of hypocrisy to which
you have sunk.

>#Ron Bense
>#agreed with this when he claimed that irony is lost on me.  

>No, he didn't.

Bense was clever enough to delete the attribution line so that he could
better attack me.  Of course, it made it impossible for readers to follow
these lines ("the above way" was missing from Bense's follow-up).

#>For Susan, a net.bosom.buddy of the man Steve Chaney calls "PatricKKK"
#>to refer to "the Reverend" in the above way, illustrates the depths of
#>hypocrisy to which she has sunk.

#Irony is completely lost on you, isn't it. Even when the top level was
#as shallow as it was in this case. (The deeper levels escape you completely,
#I guess.)

Note to Gordon Storga: I apologize for a crack I made about you a couple
of months ago, comparing you to Bense.  You now seem to be a much better
man than he is.

>#Documentation on request.  

Susan has not yet requested it.  In fact, I have not seen anyone request
it yet.

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: When will We See the Changes in the Stats...
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 22:45:41 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
# rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
# >As far as a societal consensus goes, I think most people believe that
# >the unborn is a person.
# 
# Actually, I think most people know that it's not a person.

And *I* think most people would rather gargle bleach than even think
about it.


-- 
+---------------------------+  I wasn't expecting it.  When Danny Elfman
| J H Woodyatt              |  sang the words, `goo goo ga choo,' Sunday
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  night, I cracked.  Some horrors are too
+---------------------------+  large to shade out.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57670 misc.legal:23218
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
Subject: General synopsis of SC Ruling
Date: 24 Jan 93 06:52:22 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

lynn@elan (Lynn Gazis) writes:
] 
] Actually, I am having difficulty getting any clear idea from this discussion
] about what the legal effect of the Supreme Court decision is.  This is
] discouraging, since I am actually reading the discussion on misc.legal.
] I gather, from what I read in the papers, that the decision applies to
] protesters who blockade clinics, and that the effect is that they will
] be only breaking state laws, and therefore state police will not be
] able to call in Federal police for reinforcement when breaking up the
] blockade.  But I could be completely wrong; some of the newspaper articles
] were kind of sketchy on the legal issues.  So, could someone kindly
] take time out from the abortion debate to explain to me the legal issues
] involved here, and what the actual effect of the Supreme Court decision
] is likely to be?

The ruling is in regards to whether or NOT folks can
try Operation Rescue, et al, under the KKK law of 1871.

The court held that no conspiracy to deprive a group
exists, in that women who wish to enter abortion clinics
do not constitute a 'group' in the same sense as the 
notion 'group' has been considered under regular
Civil Rights Legislation and litigation.

This therefore limits whether or not the case can be
brought to Federal Courts.

This ruling returned to lower courts to rule on the
Matter of Operation Rescue, et al, and their Criminal
Trespass Charges, and the matter of their Denying Access.

It would seem clear that there is an effort to protect
Operation from the Threat of Federal Courts being involved
in maintaining Liberty in those places where the Local
and State Officials are unwilling to defend liberty.
{hence why the Original Klan Law was instituted, and used
throughout most of the Civil Rights Period.}

The Interesting Matter is that It Now puts Operation Rescue
et al, in the Position of establishing whether or not they
are Intent upon anything, or if they wish us to believe
that a whole lot of folks just randomly happen to show
up at places and find themselves Hurlled into Abortion
Clinics by BrainWaveSuckingSpaceAliens, or some such....

ciao
drieux




-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
and they may not be connected..... 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 03:04:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.002031.13994@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug
Holtsinger) writes:

>The label "anti-choice" is not a correct characterization of
>the pro-life position. The label implies that pro-lifers are
>opposed to the choice to "terminate a pregnancy", which is false.

So you're not opposed to choice? Cool! Glad to have you with us!

>They are opposed to an action which results in the death of an
>innocent human being.

Okay. Fair enough. So are you opposed to the death of something
with human DNA that is not yet a human being? And (gotta
ask this) what _was_ your stance on the Gulf War anyway?

>If it were possible to transfer the child
>to another person's care without killing the child, then few
>pro-lifers would be opposed to the choice to "terminate a pregnancy".

And so would few pro-choicers. Would would you suggest we do until
then, huh, Doogie? No metal mommas around just yet. (Except for that
bad biker chick I picked up last week... but I digress ;-) )

>The label "pro-abortion" is a correct characterization of the
>pro-choice position.

Sez you.

>Pro-choicers not only want the right to
>choose to "terminate a pregnancy", but also the right to choose
>to have the child executed in the womb if the child happens to be
>mentally retarded or physically handicapped or of the wrong sex.

Correct. Doesn't mean we like it. It does mean we recognize each
person's right to decide on their own, whether they choose wisely
or foolishly.

"K-mart blue light special, Doogie! Lives and clues in aisle five.
Get some today!"
-- 
David A. Tepper '94
datepper@phoenix.princeton.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: More Bare-Fased Lies from TSAKC:
Organization: Who, me???
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:08:53 GMT

In article <PATRICK.92Dec27145820@blanco.is.rice.edu> patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1992Dec27.183725.7011@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> In article <1992Dec26.222823.13078@rotag.mi.org> 
> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> >smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>
> >> I'll happily stand on my net reputation for lying versus yours.  
>
> > I'll happily stand the validity of most "net reputations" against truth
> > anytime.
> >
> > If there didn't exist people like our dear TSAKC who spend virtually all of
> > their posting time trying to fabricate people's "net reputations", then 
> > maybe "net reputations" would be a useful yardstick, Stephen. But with all 
> > the context-cutting, misdirection, obfuscation, and outright LYING that 
> > these folks do, do you really think that the resulting "net reputations" 
> > are worth a damn? They are tainted by the obvious vendettas of the people 
> > that create and sculpt them.
>
>   Does "TSAKC" do anything besides fabricating "net reputations"?
>   I haven't really seen any pro-choice arguments from them,  
>   with perhaps the exception of Galen Hekhuis.  Most of the
>   others, like Susan Garvin, James Keegan, and Patrick Humphrey,
>   seem to spend all their time attacking other people. Perhaps
>   those are the "entrance requirements" into TSAKC -- you must
>   spend a majority of your time fabricating "net reputations". 
>   Hey Galen Hekhuis, you better get busy, or else you might 
>   get kicked out!!
>
>We don't fabricate net reputations, or anything else.  Folks like you and
>Darcy, and Suzanne, and Phil Sevilla (remember him?), and Kevin Welch, and
>Steve Chaney, and your former classmate DJR, ...

Nice little attempt at guilt-by-association there, eh, Humpty? I don't have
anything in common with those folks except TSAKC's vendettas against us.

>...managed to pretty well earn the reputations they got on Usenet.  

Oh, really? I assume you dragged each netter individually into a "clean room", 
isolated from all other netters, and exposed them to all of my posts, stripped 
clean of everyone else's comments, eh? And that's how they came to their 
negative opinions? How else can you defensibly imply that netters' opinions 
have been shaped purely by what I myself have written on the Net? The notion 
is completely absurd. The only way you can make such a statement with any
credibility is for your hands to be ABSOLUTELY clean of any opinion-
tainting. Your hands aren't clean of that, Humpty. As a matter of fact,
they're filthy from it...

							- Kevin

"I'm only really good at judging colored semen contests, anyway."
					Susan Garvin, sgast+@pitt.edu
					30 Dec 92 22:07:01 GMT
					<1235@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:46:28 GMT

My God says sympathetically tells her that is wrong, tells her why, and then 
lets her do what she wants.  It's called free choice - a major tenet of 
Christianity and a major debate with Calvinists.  If interested read 
talk.religion.misc, and look for articles on free will.

mac
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Organization: The Academy of Unintentional Comedy
	<30121@oasys.dt.navy.mil> <nyikos.728078000@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:27:38 GMT

On 26 Jan 93 19:53:20 GMT, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) said:

>In <30121@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>>In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>>She altered an attribution line so it would read that way.  Ron Bense
>>>agreed with this when he claimed that irony is lost on me.  Documentation

>>Pete,

>>    A quick note to explain some basics to you. Claiming that irony
>>is lost on someone does not mean that the one stating so agrees with
>>anything said by those using the said irony. Please do not place words
>>in my mouth (I'm quite capable of forming my own:).

>What's your point, Ron?  Read my words again.
>I "accused" you of agreeing with me, not
>with agreeing with Susan.  Are you deficient in reading comprehension?
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I nominate this as the funniest PHoney article of the month...

--PLH, ballots will be secret, of course.
--
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58303 misc.legal:23443