HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:10:11 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = Michael Loomis writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes

[re: Holtsinger assertion that pro-choicers all support infanticide..] 

>>Pro-choicers, attennnnnnnn-SHUN!
>> 
>>Sound off:  Which pro-choicers believe that "newborn babies are not
>>yet appropriate objects for ethics"?  I am diametrically opposed to
>>that statement.

[...]
>I would also suggest to Mr. Novak that talk.abortion is neither the
>place where the 1992 election will be decided nor will petty victories
>over Mr. Holtsinger (and childish name-calling against him) promote the
>pro-choice position in our society.  

May I respond to Mr. Loomis that, as I stated in the earlier posting,
some people may not be aware that abortion is simply one in a list of
far-right extremist agenda items.  Maybe my postings will influence no
one; but if I enlighten just one person as to insidious movements
underfoot, or if one person on the fence is made to realize that
Holtsinger's bullshit is just that, then I've accomplished what I
wanted.

Other than THAT...who said posting "childish name-calling" can't be just plain
fun :)?  A lot of what I post on the net is simply personal
entertainment.  If you prefer slow-to-respond, ponderous replies, hey -
you don't hear ME bitching, do you?

>A well-thought set of suggestions
>about human life and other forms of life will help promote such views. 
>Thinking seriously about infanticide will help us clarify such
>suggestions.  

>Talk.abortion may be a useful place for such discussion.  
>There are some thoughtful people who post this bboard.

Stick it, Loomis.  I may be boisterous, I may be irritating: but I'll
match wits with you any day.  For example, your support of infanticide
is definitely NOT a "well-thought set of suggestions".

Are you Mr. Moderator now?  Holtsinger may be interested.

>In particular,
>why is it good to permit a newborn infant whose short life will be only
>a painful torment to live and to kill a similar third trimester fetus? 

The only reason, in my book, that a third trimester fetus can be aborted
is that IT INHABITS THE WOMAN'S BODY...and taking away that right
amounts to temporary enslavement in the shape of forced birth.

Any born, alive and breathing human being, including the most defective
baby that the mother chose not to abort, is protected by societal laws,
in this case the Constitution of the U.S.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:59:00 GMT
Keywords: Reinforcements

In article <1992Aug25.165321.25266@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.140639.6280@bmw.mayo.edu> 
> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
> 
> > A fetus has never been a legal person.
> 
> Before Roe v. Wade was handed down, there was never any constitutional
> right to kill a member of the human species.  

This statement is not correct.  Unlike Doogie, however, I have
more than blatant assertion or idle speculation to support
my remarks.

Reference constitutional statements regarding treason.
Reference numerous Supreme Court decisions in which the
right of the states to execute prisoners was upheld as
constitutional.

Try again, Doogie.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:56:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.204749.4281@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug25.182118.13682@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug23.235355.8281@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer
>> >In article <1992Aug20.141415.3923@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike
>> >
>> >Either way, it's not YOUR decision to make, Mikey, it's the woman's.
>>
>> If it's my z/e/f/child that she is carrying, it IS partially my decision.
>> As it's partially my z/e/f/child that would be aborted.
>
>Is it partially inside your body?  Getting it out of *her* body is *her*
>decision.  What you do *after* it's out of her body is a joint decision.

Well, I have tossed this idea around a bit and I think that *YES* it is
partially his z/e/f. And I think that he should be allowed to have returned
to him the cellular equivalent of the several sperm he provided for conception.
We could do this by perhaps inserting a small needle into the fetus before
an abortion and withdrawing 1 or 2 cells. Then Mike would have nothing
to complain about.

anne

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors ... perform third trimester abortions"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 03:52:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep03.224620.5006@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Sep3.150018.4464@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug30.035846.40919@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
>> >In  <1992Aug29.180604.13845@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
>> >>
>> >> [re: "three doctors" claim]
>> >>
>> >> ...It doesn't appear that Mr. Margolis is
>> >> willing to track down the source.
>> >
>> >That's right - I'm not.  As far as I know, it's true.  If you can
>> >list more doctors that perform third tri abortions, or you can
>> >document for me cases of women getting third-trimester abortions
>> >for "frivolous" reasons, I would of course change my tune.  Unlike
>> >some, I don't knowingly pass on lies.
>>
>> Larry, passing off something as fact without lifting a finger to check whether
>> it's true or not demonstrates a reckless disregard for truth, and is in fact
>> "lying".
>
>Kevin, the part that you deleted and replaced with an ellipsis was:
>> >> The transcript does not mention the source of Stahl's claim
>> >> about the "three doctors".  I may write to 60 Minutes to ask
>> >> them for a source.
>
>Doug has numerous sources that he can check.  

Yes, Larry, and the part YOU deleted (without even indicating any kind of 
ellipsis, I'll note) was:

>>If I were you, I'd retract 
>>your claim pending positive proof or disproof one way or another.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

See, Larry, I'm not suggesting you abandon the claim PERMANENTLY; only until
such time as the facts can be determined.

>I have seen multiple
>independent reports of this, so I'm satisfied that it's true.  

I only remember you citing the 60 Minutes source. Multiple independent
sources are _more_ credible, of course, but they still don't "prove the 
negative"...

>No
>matter how many sources are provided, it seems that Doug will not
>be satisfied with them.  So why should I bother?

By the same logic ("why bother?"), should you be making such claims in the
first place? It is my opinion that if a claim is made, and challenged in 
good faith, then the only two acceptable choices are to support it, or to
retract it. You seem to find a third alternative in there somewhere.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:13:33 GMT

From article by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
> 
> [Gee, Suxanne the Bitch is back, and just as "compassionate" as ever...]
> 
> Fuck off and die, bitch.


Ah yes, I should take you as my model of compassion and kindness.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: DOS indulges her obsession with false accusations
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:17:17 GMT

In article <Bto007.vo.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> a) Unsubstantiated accusation that I had been making up sources 
>>    for an article that Susan Garvin had never seen. 

> As Galen said, it's a safe bet that the sun will come up tomorrow,
> even though we haven't seen tomorrow yet.  

And it's also a safe bet that Susan Garvin will continue to post 
false accusations.  

> Each time that you reproduce the doctored quote on Roe you 
> are effectively lying.  

I have never posted a doctored quote about Roe. 

> Each time that you claim that Roe
> granted the right to abortion on demand throughout pregnancy
> you are lying.  

Roe v. Wade does grant the right to abortion on demand throughout
the term of pregnancy.  I've posted proof for that claim, which
many people have ignored. 

>> d) Unsubstantiated accusation that I had changed the meaning
>>    of a quote from a Georgetown University law professor. 

> You did change the meaning, DOD.  You deleted entire paragraphs,
> and you deleted the last sentence of the final paragraph that
> you did include.  

But these paragraphs had nothing to do with the issue at hand.
You might as well accuse me of doctoring the quote by not
posting the text of the entire book.  

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
 that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
 we want to be precise)..."
   -- Gloria Feldt,
      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Abortion safer than giving birth
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 06:37:28 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  <nyikos.715300439@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Aug27.191315.36800@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.co
>
> >It's not clear that you're interested in learning, if you automatically
> >dismiss facts because you don't like the source.  Perhaps you'll like
> >one of these sources better.
>
> Thank you.  I saved the info you listed below, although the first
> table is extremely suspect, and there's nothing to go on.  But I will
> study the rest of the info very carefully.

Why is it suspect?  Because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: 1-900-fone-sex  (was: myths about PP or something)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 02:58:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.001019.17734@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
>> In article ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:
>
>> [Loren and Ilana discussing various forms of what they call
>>  "non-contact sex", the details of which I just can't bear to repeat.]
>
>My gosh.  I've never heard such a ridiculous term in all my life as
>"non-contact sex".  What a hoot!  Tain't sex if it's "non-contact", 
>now is it.
>
>Why don't y'all just buy yourselves trashy novels and be done with it.



Let me guess.  Suxanne has never cuddled up with somebody in front of a
crackling fireplace with a couple glasses of wine, and watched "adult" films,
right?

Have the doctors tried giving you Haldol yet, MissBitch?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=I am not "pro-life"... - Doug Holtsinger in article                          =
=                                          <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu>   =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Pro-Life? (was Re: Hypocrites?)
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 21:43:15 GMT

<1992Aug24.231736.7426@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) :
><1992Aug17.180248.19974@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug11.212039.7622@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>In article <BsMrFu.n2H@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> 
>>>wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>>>A woman who intentionally gets pregnant using artificial
>>>insemination might want an abortion after she discovers
>>>that the developing child has Down's syndrome. Rape and
>>>incest exceptions for abortion would not apply here, so 
>>>your argument that these exceptions are intended to
>>>punish women for having sex doesn't have any support. 
>>
>>Yes, it does. If abortion is murder, then allowing abortion in cases of
>>rape or incest doesn't make sense. If abortion is less than murder, what
>>is wrong with it? Banning abortion for spurios reasons certainly
>>qualifies for punishing sexually active women in *my* book.
>
>No. Killing for sex is not generally legal, and that's good enough
>justification for banning abortion as birth control.

Who's killing for sex?

>Banning abortion for rape & incest is justified because no victim, to date,
>has a right to kill someone else to relieve their suffering - unless that
>someone else were the attacker. 

Even this is not absolute.  A woman may defend herself at the point of
attack including lethal force, she may not hunt down the attacker later
and kill him, no matter how much she continues to suffer.

>someone else were the attacker. The z/e/f does not qualify as the attacker

Nor does it qualify as a "someone".

>- the rapist does.

Barely, in my opinion.

>Doug Holtsinger was speaking about principles, Charles, not just newspaper
>stories. He is saying that the principle that says a z/e/f created by 
>artificial insemination can be killed with the same regard as an unwanted 
>refrigerator, sucks.

How do you kill a refridgerator?

>The pro-life point in general, is that the z/e/f has as much civil rights
>as the rest of us, and like Siamese Twins, their rights override bodily
>autonomy WRT the uterus.

Very succinctly put.  I disagree with it though.



Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Keywords: Reinforcements
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:56:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.165321.25266@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Before Roe v. Wade was handed down, there was never any constitutional
>right to kill a member of the human species.  

Lying again, eh, Doogie?

    Constitution of the United States

    ...

    ARTICLE I.  LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

	...

	Section 8.  Powers Granted to Congress

	    1.  The Congress shall have the power...

	    ...

	    11. To decare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and
	    make rules concerning captures on land and water;

	    ...

	    15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws
	    of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

	    ...

	...

    ...

    ARTICLE III.  JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

	...

	Section 3.  Treason

	    ...

	    2. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of
	    treason, ...

	...

    ...

    AMENDMENT V

	No person shall be held to answer for a capital ... crime, unless
	on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases
	arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in
	actual service in time of war or public danger; ...

    ...


Note that Congress has the power to declare war, which give Congress the power
to allow members of the human species to be killed.  Note that one of the
traditional punishments for treason is death, which Congress has the power
to declare.  Note that members of the human species may be held to answer
for capital crimes, and further note that "capital" means specifically that
the punishment is death.

Pretty pathetic attempt, DOD.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

There is no such thing as pure pleasure; some anxiety always goes with it.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: raising $ for pro-choice groups...
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:10:47 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)

In article <1992Sep4.051829.3018@beaver.cs.washington.edu> lenox@cs.washington.edu (Amy Lenox) writes:
#do clinics still have fund raisers that raise money dependent on the
#number of pro-lifers that show up for protests?

One of ours does.  (Luckily, most donors have increased their
contribution per protester since the anti's have been 
drawing smaller and smaller numbers over time.)

#maybe we can start our own adoption program for pro-lifers...
#say, every time DOD posts we donate $.10 to PP, or for each
#new fanatic that comes along (this is the start of a new
#school year so the time is ripe) a dollar goes to battered
#women's clinic - for some reason pro-life fanatics make me
#think of the abuse of women...  

I like this idea.  If we all contribute a dollar, say, to
PP every time that DOD lies about a Supreme Court decision
or purposefully misquotes anyone in addition to the 10
cent per post contribution, we should be able to counteract
the gag rule in no time.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Life at Conception? [prev: Legal Questions]
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 23:17:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <sexe7jq@Unify.Com>  sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
>
> In my mind the debate over abortion comes down to whether or not the ____ is
> a zybote/fetus or a child (read human) at conception

And the answer is...
   D.  None of the above.

The sperm and egg become a _zygote_ at conception.  After cleavage, it's
called an embryo; after 3 months it's called a fetus.  If you're talking
about human sperm and human eggs, then it's a human zygote, human embryo,
and human fetus.  But it's not *a* human until birth.

> If it is not
> human then you can do any bloody thing you want to it (please no slams from
> animal lovers), but if it _is_ human then abortion is pre-meditated murder.

By the same logic, male masturbation and menstruation are pre-meditated
murder, because the sperm and egg are human.  (I suppose you'd call
nocturnal emissions involuntary homicide.)

It is human.  It is not *a* human.

> People that say the ____ is human at conception and don't consider
> abortion murder are self-serving people comming up with incomplete arguments.

People who make the argument that you do are ignorant people who don't
know the difference between a noun and an adjective.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 29 Aug 92 14:12:16 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
>> Airplane Boy

># That means all abortions should be outright banned in the third
># trimester because no woman needs to kill a fetus that old, because
># s/he can survive independently. 

>Lemme see -- if all third trimester fetuses can survive independently
>of their mothers, and third trimester abortion is banned to prevent
>pregnant women from willfully killing their fetuses, then...

>	...how about we just `separate' 24 week and older fetuses from
>their mothers, and pretend it isn't abortion?

Especially since it's usually called "C-Section" or "induced labor" anyway ...

># In short, the law should demand that the procedure result in a live
># fetus and the use of an incubator, with no exceptions. 

>What if the mother is financially incapable of coming up with the
>megabucks to save the life of her 12 week premature newborn?
>What if said child is severely disabled and requires highly expensive
>medical care throughout his/her life to stay alive and the mother
>can't afford it?

Well, you don't honestly expect that Stephen "My Thrust Reverser Was
Engaged At Takeoff" Chaney would lay out ay of *his* money to *gasp*
HELP SAVE A LIFE, do you?  You don't think he wants to outlaw abortions
to save lives, do you, as opposed to gaining control over women?  You
wouldn't expect him to PRACTICE WHAT HE PREACHES, would you?

-- 
"A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33817 alt.abortion.inequity:3312
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:55:09 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug21.160806.14592@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug
Holtsinger) advises Mike Serafin:
> 
> You mentioned "celibacy".  To me, that means no sex of any kind.
> You should be careful in your choice of words, because some
> people might mistake you for being a prude.  

As opposed to mistaking him for a mental case?

No worries.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Maury Povich and the brainwashing child abusers
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:02:50 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

     I would just like to say that I also had the opportunity to 
watch that Maury Povich episode yesterday, and Susan Garvin's
interpretation was quite accurate indeed.  It was frustrating
to watch the pro-lifers on the panel spew their arguments without
being able to tell them what was the matter with them (their
arguments that is).  Brainwashing put aside, those children were
and will continue to be abused by their parents.  I'm not sure
if it's good parental practice to allow your 13 year-old daughter
to be arrested 42 times, and say "it's ok, she wanted to do it,
I didn't put her up to it."

Scary people.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion