HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:25:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.175413.9267@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

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

>> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:

>>>	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
>>> ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
>>> tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
>>> dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
>>> plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
>>> platforms.

>> Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports exceptions for rape
>> and incest, and for the life of the mother.   

> And for members of his own family.

This statement is not correct.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:49:05 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug13.175019.5695@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> In  <1992Aug12.190547.2113@brandonu.ca>  mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>>
>> Alright, lemme try this again...  In reference to the line above,
>> "Birth isn't arbitrary, Just wrong," Brendan (as far as I can figure)
>> is pointing out that it is wrong to abort a fetus late in the third
>> trimester
> 
> Gee, Brian, I think you meant that Brendon is *claiming* that, because
> "pointing out" implies that it's true.  :-)
> 
>> For further support of this, why would a woman endure nearly 9 months
>> of pregnancy, and then decide to abort?
> 
> Maybe it's threatening her life?  That is, after all, the only reason
> that late third trimester abortions are performed in this country.

In my last post I said if there was risk (like significant risk I mean)
to the woman's life then the birth point is fine, otherwise it isn't.
 
>> The fetus is viable and essentially the same as a newborn.
> 
> A newborn isn't inside another person.

As in last post, just before birth the woman has already endured the hell
of having the fetus inside, what's another minute or so?
 
>> It isn't nice to kill things like that
>> unless you have a damn good reason,
> 
> Like, to save the life of the woman?
> 
> As you said above, why would a woman endure nearly 9 months of pregnancy,
> and then decide to abort?  She must have a damn good reason.  So if she
> does have a damn good reason, why would you try to prevent her?

I would never prevent anyone from having an abortion (well maybe I'd
try to debate awhile if their reasons are really shoddy (like a woman
in labour who screams "get me an abortion" instead of "put me under" (
not like I figure I'd see too many women in labour screaming that))).
 
Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32433 alt.politics.elections:10943
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: politics
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:07:36 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <1992Aug19.163821.17023@ncsu.edu>, dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu writes:
> In article <onv3s2k@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
||I am pleased to see the Democrats taking such a strong
||pro-choice stand, in an election where their opponents have
||adopted a plank that includes NO EXCEPTIONS for victims of rape
||and incest.  The Republicans are extremists.  


[...]
|Clinton has said that he wouldn't veto
|Medicaid funding of abortions for poor women.  Nobody has to get
|an abortion that they don't want, but the Democrats would force
|people to pay for somebody else's abortion. 

Gosh, that's horrible, Doug.  The prospect of *your* money being
spent on abortions upsets you.  Well, if money is what is
important, Doug, why don't you count up how much of your money
is now spent on welfare for single mothers, Doug?  Now ask
yourself, is that MORE money or LESS money than an abortion?

Abortion costs the taxpayer less than welfare.  Good answer, Doug!

Now take one step further.  Ask yourself, Doug, which costs
more:  birth control or abortion?  Now, Doug, I know you don't
approve of schools handing out condoms, because you think it's a
waste of money.  You've posted lots about that here.  But
really, aren't condoms pretty cheap in comparison to food stamps?  

Isn't birth control more cost-effective than abortion?  And
isn't abortion more cost-effective than welfare?

I hear you, Doug:  your money is your god.  I'm just trying to
respect your values.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Compassion (was: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because: )
Date: 15 Aug 92 00:41:25 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1992Aug12.184629.2111@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> 
>He didn't cheapen compassion because he holds beliefs in which the fetus
>is something which you can have compassion for.  

I disagree. I believe that the mere HOLDING of a belief in compassion-without-
antecedent-suffering is an _a priori_ cheapening of the emotion.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Chaney/Hall for President (was Re: Revised consistency check)
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 23:32:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.171248.22485@u.washington.edu> darkstar@u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann) writes:
>Stephen A Chaney writes
>> In article <darkstar.713555772@milton> darkstar@milton.u.washington.edu  
>(Alden Hackmann) writes:
>> 
>> Quiet now, Alden Roby. 
>
>Having a little trouble identifying who's who?  I guess he and I both know how  
>to spell "harass", so we must be the same person...

That's if you listen to Scott Humphrey/Roby. The _real_ world don't
work that way. 

===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
	        With the little girl's consent, of course. 
	        Doesn't this drive the pro-aborts _nuts_?! 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:53:55 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes:

>>>>>> Regarding Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush; dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) adds:

>dsholtsi> In article <l8hms5INN4n9@girtab.usc.edu> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:

>>	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
>> ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
>> tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
>> dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
>> plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
>> platforms.

>dsholtsi> Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports exceptions
>dsholtsi> for rape and incest, and for the life of the mother.

>The plank in the Republican party platform calls for banning *all*
>abortions.

Through Constitutional Amendment, no less.  Can't let that heathen Supreme
Court have any say...

 -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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:42:17 GMT

<n1cypnr@rpi.edu> (rocker) writes:
> I think a friend of mine put it best when she noted that people
> who oppose abortion are generally those who are unlikely ever to
> need one.

A fair comment.  But consider that the arrow of cause-effect can
go the other way too.

That is, you are saying there are people who are unlikely to need
an abortion who then conclude they are opposed to abortion.

You should remember that there are also people who are opposed to
abortion, who then guide their lives in such ways that they will
be unlikely to ever need one.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32488 alt.flame:12188
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Comparing the exclusionary policies of the Republicrats
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:10:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Aug18.161401.7479@wuecl.wustl.edu> dgp@atlas.wustl.edu
(Don Porter) writes in response to <AZATHOTH.92Aug17214213@lighthouse
.caltech.edu> (Az for short!) who characterized the Republicans as
exclusionary:

>Both parties have made a calculated exclusion of a targeted group in
>the hope that the exclusion will attract more of that group's enemies
>than an attempt at inclusion would attract members of the targeted
>group.  The Republicans are excluding homosexuals and the Democrats are 
>excluding pro-lifers.

(1) The Republicans are excluding pro-choice people by your own
symmetry.  (2) Their platform specifically endorses the
Judeo-Christian tradition, thus excluding millions of Americans who
are neither Jewish nor Christian.  etc. etc.

Deletia unimportant to points I am contending.

>There may be one difference in the two.

There's a lot more than one.  For example, the Democrats do not favor
building a fence along the entire length of our border with Mexico.

More deletia.

>Contrast this with the Democratic convention where speaker after speaker
>stood up for a "woman's right to choose".  (Choose what?!  For goodness
>sake, if you can't even say it, how can you support it?).  

I must be missing something.  I heard Clinton specifically mention
abortion, and it was absolutely clear (to me and everyone I know) what
was meant by a woman's right to choose.  Are you suggesting there is
some obfuscation in saying one is pro-choice without saying one is in
favor of allowing women the right to choose abortion?  Do you say two
of the clock rather than 2 o'clock?

>The clear
>message to pro-lifers was "Take a hike!"  We will see if the Republican's
>message is equally clear to homosexuals as the convention progresses.

The Republican platform sends an equally clear message to those who
are pro-choice.  In fact, I would argue that a constitutional ban on
abortion is a considerably more extreme position on abortion than the
FOCA, which is at the heart of the Democrat's position on abortion.

SJM
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another fantastic reason to vote for Bush
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:19:02 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = Steve Novak writes:
>>> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> That is a lie, President Bush supports fetal tissue research, but he 
>>> opposes using fetal remains from elective abortions.  

>> Bush does *not* support fetal tissue research.  

>Wrong, Bush does support fetal tissue research.

Another example of selective, distortive editing by the Holts-erama.

Couldn't respond to my reasoning, huh, Doogie?

[deleted...what I already said earlier were the aborted fetuses Bush would
"allow".]

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:21:52 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> = (Hot Young Star):


[...]
>> As if that weren't unusual enough, the little girl, seeing that her
>> parents and the two approaching men were both holding hands, said
>> matter-of-factly:
>> 
>> "Two daddies!"
>>
>> Let's hope she retains this attitude for the rest of her life, and does
>> not end up having her mind poisoned by heterosexism like so many other
>> people.

>I hate to break it to you Brian, but for a while my little girl called
>ALL men "daddy" and ALL women "mommy".  

I fail to see why you'd put any stock, then, in your daughter pointing to
a plastic embryo and saying "baby".     

>We got some pretty funny looks
>in the grocery store.   There was one time I love to recall, where she
>pointed at a thin woman with short hair and said, "Daddy!"   Then she
>did a double-take and said "Mommy!".   

Your daughter sounds like a typical confused toddler.  Now, just why
would her inaccuracies "shame" us?

>I strongly suspect your little niece was not embracing homosexualism as much 
>as she was simply verbalizing that she could tell that they were both men.

She was also indicating that any homophobia would have to be learned.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: ANY exceptions?--a question
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 05:05:58 GMT

In article <14189@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, pburch@bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch) writes:
# 
# After wading through Clarinet plus quite a few of the 650 postings I 
# see in talk.abortion, I haven't found what I wanted--out of touch with 
# the world, I missed a few details in last week's news. It seems 
# necessary to take a step I never thought I would--actually POST 
# something on talk.abortion (gulp).
# 
# When the Republican Party placed a "near-total" (the most detail I could 
# find in a handy copy of this week's Time magazine was the quoted phrase) 
# ban on abortion in their platform, how total was the ban that they called 
# for? Exactly what exceptions, if any, did they accept?
# 
# Surely they didn't REALLY call for a ban on abortions of ectopic 
# pregnancies, did they?
# 
# I've gathered from what I've seen that they did call for outlawing 
# abortions of the results of rape and incest.

The platform calls for a `Human Life Amendment' to the U.S.
Constitution that `makes it clear that the protections of the 14th
amendment apply to unborn children.'

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment XIV, Paragraph 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it's clear what the Human Life Amendment would do.

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

Tired of `short, shameful confessions?'  Too old for `one line bios?'
`Rictus Hep' just too bizarre?  Try *NEW* ----> `I resolve...'  It's
the latest craze!  Tastes great!  Low in saturated fat!  And!!  It
doesn't leave you drowsy like those other brands!  New `I resolve...'
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetal Independence
Date: 22 Aug 92 18:21:14 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Aug20.180343.4956@ncsu.edu> (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>I believe that when the mother's life conflicts with the fetus, 
>then the mother's life should always take precedence.  

OK, Doug, then answer me this.  What sort of risk are you comfortable with
inflicting on the woman?

	When she has a (25%, 50%, 75%, 100%, ??%) chance of death?

Obviously you don't care what permanent injury or pain she incurs (because
it "comes with pregnancy"), but surely you can tell a woman to her face
how close to death she has to be before you will generously allow her to
defend herself.

Is the sense of power making your dick hard yet?

--Teddi
----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)----------------
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Plop, plop, fizz fizz...
Summary: Oh, what a relief it is!
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:32:12 GMT

/csus.edu>$/h:j			ChaHallney goes into the bit-bucket.
/ncsu.edu>$/h:j			Holtsinger does the same, and all replies.
/alt.politics.bush/h:j		About 200 articles of bickering, gone.

Amazing what 3 little lines can do for your life.
-- 
	Arrogant?  Of course I'm arrogant; the best usually are.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Who is this reference?
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 03:23:01 GMT

In talk.abortion, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

>Anyway, there really isn't too much difference between 80 and 50%, even
>if there is 30 percent between them.

Hmmmm, not much difference, eh?

Well, how about I offer to flip a coin 100 times.  Before each flip we each
put 50 cents on the table.  If the flip is heads, you get 50% of the pot and
I'll take the rest.  If the flip is tails, I get 80% of the pot and you take
the rest.

I'm sure you'll take me up on this, as "there really isn't too much difference
between 80 and 50%", no?

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

When choosing between two evils I always like to take the one I've never tried
before.
			- Mae West
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:35:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.173123.12120@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <Bt4rME.Gou.1@cs.cmu.edu> 
> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> 
> >john@anasazi.com writes:
> 
> >> Hmmm... that's odd. I heard a PRO-CHOICE advocate state that 1% of
> >> abortions in the US are in the 3rd trimester. These must be very
> >> busy and rich doctors.
> 
> > That's *less* than 1%.  
> 
> The annual number of abortions performed at 21 weeks and after tends
> to number in the thousands.  Percentages always make the numbers look 
> smaller than people might realize.  That's because there are millions
> of abortions performed every year. 
> 
> And it's not clear what Ms. Garvin defines as "third trimester". The 
> definition of third trimester varies; some put it at 28 weeks, others 
> at 24 weeks.

Then what is the relevance of your putting it at 21 weeks?  Could
there be an attempt there to, dare I say it, muddy the waters?
Misrepresent?

Amazing how you provide a snippet about abortions at 21 weeks and
after and then state that the relevant period is either 24 or 28
weeks.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: I tend to be Pro-Choice because: 2
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:24:02 GMT

> = (Linda Heather Springer) writes:

[...]
>Also, the Jews were under different rules than Christians.  They were  
>allowed to have slaves and kill other nations.  God expects more of  
>Christians. Please se my previous article *Re: I tend...*.

Dear deluded Bible twinkie: if your "god" is this much of a shithead, who
needs him anyway?

Please stuff your bigotry up your Forgach.

Thanx.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Who was "Dennis Hall"?
Summary: I gotta set up a cron job...
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 07:54:57 GMT

In article <Bt98Ev.Bp9@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>In article <1684554D.HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Patrick Humphrey) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug16.003415.17098@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> 
>>>                Shhh, Scott.
>>>                We know you're posting as Pat Harumphrey because
>>>                you both lie the same way.
> 
>>Come on, Steve.  Let's see just how much of a boy you are.  March your
>>fat black ass down here and tell me I'm a liar, to my face.  (I hope
>     ^^^^^
>Excuse me, Patrick.  I don't see that Steve's skin color is of any relevance.  
>I find the phraseology here repugnant.

I know, and I've already apologized to everyone (except Steve, of course)
for my choice of words.  If Borgie Boy wants an apology from me, he'll have
to come down here and get it in person -- no ifs, ands, or buts.  What color
Steve is doesn't mean anything to me, either -- he's a bozo, and that's all
I need to know.  

>Excuse me, Steve.  What is my name doing in this thread?  I would never 
>use the phrase that Patrick just used.  Please remove my name.  Thanks.

He's just trying to insinuate that about you, too, and as usual, he doesn't
have enough backbone to say what he really means.  

>[Note I am not endorsing or condemning anyone here.  I am stating my 
>feelings about this particular thread.]

I appreciate it.  Now watch Mr. Multiple Personalities try and twist your
words around into something the opposite of what you said, though.  (You
know, he *would* fit in at Egghead...:-)

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

              Hit this .sig and win a free trip to Dewalt, Texas!
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: BUSH FACTSHEET: Abortion
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:35:26 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Distribution: na
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Aug19.222709.1448@ncsu.edu>  dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> Re-posted from alt.politics.bush.  Please try to leave Tom Grundner's
> attribution in the article.
>
> ---
> In article <1992Aug19.213731.14191@nptn.org>
> tmg@nptn.org (Tom Grundner) writes:
>
> April 14, 1992

> ...He is opposed to abortion except when the life of the
> mother is threatened or when there has been rape or incest.

Mr. Grundner should update his fact sheet.  Note that it's from before
President Bush expressed support for the Republican platform, which
contains *no* rape or incest exceptions.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)