HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Sep 92 19:32:10 GMT

In <1992Sep08.035811.28123@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In  <nyikos.715899124@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <1992Sep6.225636.17167@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt
>>
>> >So, tell us if Mr. Margolis's guess is really wrong -- what percent of
>> >abortion providers have been spared punishment under this law because
>> >it wasn't enforced?
>>
>> I'm just starting to find out about this stuff, and the people I am
>> trying to get information from are incredibly busy, so the answers
>> may be a long time coming.
>>
>> I do not know of a single case of an abortionist reporting an incest
>> case.
>>
>> I do not know of a single case of an abortionist disciplined for
>> refusing to report an incest case.

>Now for the $64,000 question - do you know of a single case of an
>abortionist learning of an incest case?  If not, can you think of
>a better expression to describe what you're engaged in than
>"baseless speculation"?

Your question is really two questions.

1.  Do I know of an abortionist who cared enough about a "young woman"
(say, aged 14) to ask how she got into the mess she was in?

No.

2. Do I know of a young woman, or the relative dragging her in, telling
an abortionist that this was an incest case without being asked?

No. 

 The Buffalo story, however, implies a Yes answer to one or the other
of these questions, and now that I have a clearer picture of what
SC law says, I will pursue this lead.

Peter Nyikos

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36568 alt.abortion.inequity:3757
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Men's health risks - due to children? (Observations)
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:33:02 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

Note follow-up.

And John, had I known you were on a posting spree, I would have responded
to them all in one or two combined posts.

In talk.abortion, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>> Gordon Storga

>Wrong.  He has fewer health risks during the pregnancy than the woman,
>but has more health risks during the next 18 years.  Check the stats
>on stress related illnesses in men.

Wow! You mean those are all due to children? You mean if I don't have
any I won't have any of these illnesses? But wait! I see here some men
who have no children, no wife, yet they are still suffering from stress
related illnesses! Why is that, John? Could you be misleading in your
above statement?

>>If your
>>religion requires that you must legalize involuntary servitude for women
>>I suggest you find a nice middle-east or south american country to live
>>out your fantasies.

>|-()  Another big laugh!  So many pro-choicers use this totally lame
>accusation in the attempt to defend abortion.  As if any semi-intelligent
>person couldn't tell the difference between disallowing abortion (removing
>only ONE choice) and 'involuntary servitude for women'!

You must not be semi-intelligent. Just exactly what would you call what
you are proposing, if not involuntary servitude? The woman does not
want to provide care for the fetus inside her, yet you insist she must,
against her will. This is involuntary servitude, as she is providing
a service against her will. All your waffling will not change this definition,
as it is correct in the context of the English language.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Swing and a Miss for Dear Old Dean...
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:45:21 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  <1992Sep14.214944.5481@wetware.com>  drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
> So it leads me back, first to YOUR PROBLEMS,
> and then to Dear Old Bill, and potential questions
> about 'professional competence' Given as I have
> been certified, and most of You Loonies are still
> VERY, VERY, VERY questionable....

We may not have a card, but many of us are certifiable.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:20:46 GMT

dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:


>Steve [Chaney],
>
>When you start to pretend your important, do you stick out your
>chest as far as you can and talk in the whiny, excited Rush Limbaugh
>voice?  
"The wronger they are, the more strident they are" seems to fit here...

>I'm just kind of curious how much of Rush's radio persona
>are you trying to use.
Some sort of 'ego' envy...idolizing someone like Rush...geesh.

And whether or not Rush is serious is immaterial to the amount of money he
makes!  ;-)  Sort of like 'pro' wrestling...;-)

 -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: keegan@acm.acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@acm.rpi.edu>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 03:55:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.151857.21525@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> In <1992Sep11.003611.14506@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
->    (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
-> >> I understand.  It's not easy to convince people that
-> >> your motives are honest.  
-> >
-> > i don't think your motives were dishonest bill. i think
-> > you honestly hold the same view of all the people who
-> > have suggested that DODie, or chaney, et. al. could
-> > benefit from therapy. 
-> 
-> Then you think incorrectly, Jim.  

ok. i accept your admission that your motives were
dishonest then.

-> And as I've indicated,
-> many people can "benefit from therapy".  That, however,
-> should not be interpreted as an indication of pathology,
-> which was the basis of your implication.

no it wasn't, bill. since i've commented on this previously,
i'm curious as to why you continue to post the basis for my
comments.

haven't you recently asked that someone post an apology
for misrepresenting you?


-- 
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Dalton Brooks Gehtz
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 07:02:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy) writes ...
>In article <> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>>	Oh *really*?  You wouldn't care to actually provide a source for that
>>little claim, now, would you?  I'm sure we'd be most interested to find out
>>about this one.
>
>From the October, 1991 issue of a magazine called 
>_New_Dimensions_:_The Psychology_ Behind_the_News_.  
>On page 21 it reads:

As evidence that 9/10 of women who get abortion suffer from 
abortion-induced traumas, this is pretty poor.  While I'm going to reserve
judgement on this, this "evidence" is some third party _claiming_ that PP
has admitted that _as_many_ as 9 out of 10 women _may_ suffer "trauma."
It is riddled with weasel-words and includes at least one erroneous
interpretation.  Hardly a sterling reference.

>In a shocking admission, Planned Parenthood recently acknowldeged what the anti-abortion camp has been insisting for years: Nine out of ten women who have
>"safe and legal" abortions suffer from abortion-induced traumas.  "A number of
>anti-choice studies and surveys (including the Reardon/WIC Study and the Grant
>Survey) have shown that the incidence of post-procedural trauma for abortion
>clients may be as high as 91 percent of all cases," says Planned Parenthood.
>"While recent unpublished reports from the Alan Guttmacher Institute [Planned
>Parenthood's research division] indicate that the scope of the problem may have
>been accurately tabulated in these studies, the effect of those same anti-
>choice forces in creating the trauma in the first place has not yet been
>effectively measured."  *  In other words: We admit that nine out of ten women
>who have abortions are traumatized by the experience...but the pro-lifers
>are to blame.
>
>
>*Planned Parenthood's "Department of Education 3-Year Plan and Long Range
>Program Goals, 1990-1993," page 29.
-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Organization: Not on your tin type!
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:32:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.162034.1031@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
># bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
># >stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
># ># The best I can hope for is that you will someday realize that no woman can
># ># have babies without the kindness of a man.
># >
># >You didn't really mean to write this, did you?
># 
># Yes, I did.  What do you think, my fingers slipped? :-)
>
>It's been my experience that women are completely capable of giving
>birth, not only in the absence of masculine kindness, but in the
>presence of masculine opposition as well.

Unhunh.  Are you implying that virgin birth is not only physically possible,
but the NORM?!

The incredible slant that you take on this just goes to show how far you
will go to ignore or avoid relevant facts.

I had thought this obvious, but I will make it a plain as possible: no
father, no baby, pregnancy or abortion.

># Why would I post this to talk.rape, when it has no relationship to rape
># at all?
>
>It doesn't?  None at all?  You mean rape never results in pregnancy
>and subsequent birth in the complete absence of `the kindness of a
>man?'

You are attempting to add words to what I wrote.  If you are going to
try to put words into my mouth, you should at least delete the sentence
that I wrote, so that you can cover your lies more easily.

>What could I have been thinking?

DID you think?  Or did you just react?  You see, most people assume that
if you didn't say anything about an issue YOU WEREN'T DISCUSSING IT!

If I wanted to talk about pregnancy resulting from rape, I would have
used the word rape somewhere in my sentence.

Now look, REAL HARD, and show me where in that sentence I used the word
rape.  Go on, we'll wait.

Couldn't do it, could you?

>Someone punish me.

That kind of confused, fantasy life is punishment enough.

Have you ever heard the term 'knee jerk reactionary'?

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

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Another gem -- this time from Peter Nyikos
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 19:13:01 GMT

In <1992Sep6.231834.17478@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715733663@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
># ... But you see, I feel discriminated against
># by not having the possibility of being pregnant.
># 
># 	"If men could be pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"
># 				--Pro-abortion slogan
># 	"If men could have abortions, pregnancy would be a sacrament"
># 				--Peter Nyikos

>I think I'm seeing a case of uterus envy that defies belief.  Someone
>pour cold water on me.

Good idea, you have been so brainwashed into thinking of pregnancy as 
a terrible disability, better wash your brain some more lest my comment
undo all that conditioning.

BTW the usual term is "womb envy".  You've probably been brainwashed
into substituting "uterus" for "womb" wherever you see it.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors ... perform third trimester abortions"
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 03:25:46 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.715733197@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep05.031508.38241@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margoli
>
> >In  <nyikos.715643263@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Pete
> >>
> >> (to save time, let me say that Will Steeves and Elizabeth Bartley would
> >> also be acceptable to me).
>
> >Will Steves?  The individual who said in <1992Sep3.025255.4014@zooid.guild.org>
> >>And with God or Allah (whomever) as my witness, I will say that in my own
> >>situation, if the woman had *not* been so respecting as to tell me before,
> >>but in fact had not only told me right afterwards, but had waited a year (!)
> >>or more, I probably would have snapped right there and killed her where she
> >>stood.
>
> Sorry, I missed that one.  And it seems so out of character, I find it
> hard to believe he wasn't being satirical.  Which thread was it on, so
> I can see the context?

It was in talk.abortion.  I gave the article ID; you can look that up if
you want to find out what the subject line was.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Another gem -- this time from Peter Nyikos
Date: 14 Sep 92 11:20:28 CDT

In article <1992Sep13.160538.20366@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <nyikos.716331450@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <1992Sep11.155334.8415@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>
>> >Mine eyes have seen the glory of my breakfast being lost,
>> >And I'm still sick in the nighttime when the backache makes me toss,
>> >And if I have stopped my weeping it's because I am too cross,
>> >With Hormones raging on!
>>
>> >Run, run into the bathroom,
>> >Run, run into the bathroom,
>> >Run, run into the bathroom,
>> >With Hormones raging on!
>>
>> Do we have here another case of pregnancy being held in contempt?
>
>No, we do not have here a case of pregnancy being held in contempt.
>If "another" refers to Ms. Garvin, we didn't have a case there, either.
>What we have here is someone who has experienced pregnancy relating her
>experiences.  If someone says "When I was pregnant, I had morning sickness,
>backaches, and mood swings" do you typically accuse them of contempt?
>If so, I think it's *you* who are showing contempt for the typical
>pregnant woman.

Thanks, Larry.  It's nice to have an ex-boyfriend who understands
these things so readily, without ever being told.

Like most women who have experienced pregnancy, I have mixed feelings
about it.  Contempt is not among those feelings.  However, if I were
to find out that the process is the product of some intelligent design,
I would want to have a few words with the designer.

The above lyrics actually represent only the first trimenster for
most women. (I experienced six months of unrelenting nausea with
both pregnancies.)  If anyone else would like to take a shot at 
the other trimesters, or the parturition process, go for it.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: I See a Great NEED
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 11:27:26 GMT

nolan@twg.com writes:
] In article <1992Sep3.123226.8143@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] [deletia]
funny, I thought it was dementia....
] |>There are No Free Lunches! [1]
] Yeah. That burns me. There ain't been no free launches since the days of Old
] Bobby Goddard. They cost millions now, even with ESA in the picture. Gimme a
] backyard range and a basement lab any day - lemme make my own hydrazine and
] get outa my way...
] 
] Oh. You said LUNCHES. Never mind


Yes Boys and Girls, 

What this sountry needs now more than Ever is 

SAFE SCIENCE!!!!!

Friends Don't let Friends Develop Rocket Fuel Alone!!!!!


YES Your Donations can make American a Science Free Zone!!!!!

Send Your MONEY TODAY!!!!


ciao
drieux



-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Dalton Brooks Gehtz
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 22:17:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy) writes ...
>One would expect Planned Parenthood to weasel as much as possible.
>After all they have a buck to make, and god forbid that the truth
>get in the way.

Abortion usually makes up about 4% of clinic services at a Planned 
Parenthood chapter, where contraception is the main business.

And according to the executive director of the Santa Clara & San Benito
Planned Parenthood, counseling outlines services for women who give birth
and keep their child, then goes on to describe adoption processes, and ends
with abortion counseling.  This from a recent article/interview in the San Jose
Mercury News.

As you said, God forbid that the truth get in the way.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The use of fat black ass to describe Chaney
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:46:37 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>Personally, I would never use fat black ass to describe an African
>American.  I believe that Chaney is deserving of all the put downs and
>contempt directed at him; nonetheless, I think the use of this
>terminology is an inappropriate racial slur.

Calling him an African American is a disservice to all other African
Americans.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Freedom of religion
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:34:03 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

>like [BEGIN PARAPHRASE] "Americans are hypocritical.   They *talk* about
>freedom of speech/religion, but when my religion calls for Rushdie's
>assassination..., well, then they're all against freedom of speech/religion.
>[END PARAPHRASE]

Actually, I thought it was the interpreters of his religion that called
for Rushdie's assination, not the religion itself. :) I could be wrong,
however, as I'm not a fan of the Koran.

I do hope the above was intended at ata, and not myself, as I wasn't
calling for the death of any persons. :^)

BTW, nice try at dreiuxisms[Tm].

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:33:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.004200.28459@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu 
(Suzanne Forgach) writes:

}                                                                    ... a case
}can be made that generally as a group, they [gays] do hate women.   

How?  The only case that I can make, generally, as a group, about gays,
is their sexual orientation.  If a case can be made, then make the case.

As far as non-woman-hating gays being the exception, I am associated
with a number of folk who consider themselves "gay."  I must be blessed
with associating with a number of exceptional people.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu ()
Subject: Re: What if???
Organization: Vanderbilt University 
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 03:46:53 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

In <kt1yj9c@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu writes:

 
> >Not necessarily.  Kangaroos do develop outside their mothers
> >(mostly in the pouch, true, but still visible) starting
> >at a stage where humans are still called embryos, rather than fetuses, 
> >and they've been around many millions of years longer than humans.
> 
> This is idiotic.  One free clue, Nyikos:  When the joey is in the
> pouch, can you SEE the eyes, ears, etc, as the original poster
> specified?
> 
> >Peter Ny.
> 
>                     -rocker
> 
Maybe not while they're IN the pouch, but definitely while going From the
uterus to the pouch.

Andy Lipscomb

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Baseless speculation...
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:59:57 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.716067130@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep08.035811.28123@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margoli
>
> >In  <nyikos.715899124@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Pete
> >> In <1992Sep6.225636.17167@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woody
> >>
> >> >So, tell us if Mr. Margolis's guess is really wrong -- what percent of
> >> >abortion providers have been spared punishment under this law because
> >> >it wasn't enforced?
> >>
> >> I'm just starting to find out about this stuff, and the people I am
> >> trying to get information from are incredibly busy, so the answers
> >> may be a long time coming.
> >>
> >> I do not know of a single case of an abortionist reporting an incest
> >> case.
> >>
> >> I do not know of a single case of an abortionist disciplined for
> >> refusing to report an incest case.
>
> >Now for the $64,000 question - do you know of a single case of an
> >abortionist learning of an incest case?  If not, can you think of
> >a better expression to describe what you're engaged in than
> >"baseless speculation"?
>
> Your question is really two questions.

No, it's really one question.

> 1.  Do I know of an abortionist who cared enough about a "young woman"
> (say, aged 14) to ask how she got into the mess she was in?
>
> No.
>
> 2. Do I know of a young woman, or the relative dragging her in, telling
> an abortionist that this was an incest case without being asked?
>
> No.

So then your comments regarding doctors who perform abortions in South
Carolina *are* baseless speculation, right?

And as long as you're splitting the one question into pieces, how about:

Do you know of a young incest victim who was asked by the doctor giving
her an abortion "how she got into the mess she was in," who told the truth?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion