HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Use of Force
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:10:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

>I think Greg had a lil ol Freudian "oopsie".  Greg meant to say "minors",
>yessssss?

Freudian slip nothing.  It was a simple word substitution because I
happened to be carrying on a conversation here at the same time I was
writing my post.  That conversation happened to be about minority
interests (and I was arguing on the minority side, BTW).

>Ye shall prostrate yerself in front of the graven image of
>Sojourner Truth, click your heels three times and say, "I will not harbor
>a racist subconcious.  I will not harbor a rascist subconcious.  I will
>not harbor a racist subconcious."

Practice what you preach.  First of all, you are too quick make
assumptions about my state of mind, and then of course it's unbecoming
to accuse someone of racism when practicing your own brand of
prejudice.

Besides, isn't it just slightly racist to assume I'm not a minority
member?  In some cases, legally, I am.  I'm 1/16th Cherokee.

Feh.
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------

                     Dallas Cowboys -- NFC Champions
                           The 'Boys are Back!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: What's the SAT deal?
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:44:39 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>>> As I recall it, someone SPECIFICALLY ASKED him for his SAT's.
>>> So no one can get off ridiculing him for consenting to answer such
>>> a direct question.

>> Let me put it this way.  Supposing someone asked you to post your
>> bra size.  If you even acknowledged it at all, I would expect you 
>> would decline, with a comment somewhat to the effect of it's none of
>> my business and besides it doesn't have any bearing on what we
>> discuss here.  If you did post it, I imagine you might be ridiculed
>> even though "someone SPECIFICALLY ASKED" you to do so.

> Say, that's a good question.  What IS your bra size anyway, Suzanne?

Are you trying to foment a BreastSizeWar?  Don't you realize that SizeWars
are the exclusive province of us MachoMachoMachoMachoMachoMacheezmo MenFolk?

Hope this helps.

-- 
Chris Lyman   /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /   Disclaimer:  I said WHAT?
    "If you wants to get elected president, you'se got to think up some
     memoraboble homily so's school kids can be pestered into memorizin'
     it, even if they don't know what it means." -- Walt Kelly, "Pogo" 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:59:12 GMT

In article <C1Bzsq.HJJ@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.223128.7139@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:

>>According to the Washington post, Scalia stated that since the OR
>>people would also be blocking any men who were seeking abortions, the
>>attacks were not aimed at women.

Not really.  Close, but not quite that silly.  He said that since OR
only is interfering with "women who want abortions" rather than "all women," 
the KKK law does not apply.  He says the former group does not
constitute a protected class under the law.

>Is it legally permissable for men to have abortions?  If not, men don't have
>"equal rights."

Legally permissable?  Sure.  If a man tries to get an abortion, no one
will arrest him or fine him or anything.

Now, biologically permissable?  You're going to have to take up that
argument with someone besides the Supreme Court.
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Nyikos, Apologies and Humble Pie
Date: 28 Jan 93 01:05:34 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@crd.ge.com
Organization: "T.S.A.K.C"

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
|>UNRETRACTED LIES
|>----------------

	(this about susan garvin):
        'The "original author" is a lying bitch who would say
        anything to try and salve her gargantuan bruised ego.'
		 <1992Mar14.103300.12979@rotag.mi.org>
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Closing of the Margolis Mind, Part 3
Date: 22 Jan 93 22:33:28 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


nyikos@math.scarolina.edu writes:
|margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
|>(Did you know that a guy named Reardon wrote a book, and he polled members of
|>WEBA, and he found that 90% of them felt that they were Women Exploited By
|>Abortion?  And did you know that some people quote these figures as though
|>they are representative of the general population?  Really - I didn't make
|>this up.  There really are people this naive and foolish out there.)

|Did you know that there is a person named Larry Margolis, who asked me
|to mail him the foreword to _Aborted Women, Silent No More_ featuring
|NancyJo Mann living a hellish existence for years because of a saline abortion,
|and still posts crap like the above?

So?  You didn't get his point.  The existence of one woman with
a problem is NOT evidence that abortion causes such problems,
nor is it evidence that abortion is likely to cause such
problems in women.  A sample of women self-identified as members
of WEBA is NOT going to be respresentative of the general
population.  A sample of ONE woman (NancyJo Mann) is even LESS
representative of the general population.

Women here in t.a try to make this point to you by applying your
reasoning to pregnancy.  "We had bad experiences with
pregnancy.  We're WEEP-- Women Exploited by Excruciating
Pregnancy," they say.  "Therefore, Nyikos's reasoning leads us
to conclude that pregnancy should be illegal."  Do you think
your abortion argument is valid when applied to pregnancy?  
Try the following:

You can conclude nothing from the evidence of WEBA & NancyJo Mann.
You need to look at studies done properly. 

The former Surgeon General of the US under Reagan, C. Everett
Koop, concluded that the evidence didn't support the existence
of "post- abortion trauma" or "syndrome".  He came to this
conclusion despite strong political pressure to find such a
syndrome, and despite his personal opposition to abortion.  He
commented that if abortion is wrong, it's wrong because of what
it does to the fetus, and not what it does to the woman.

I commend his reasoning to you.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"All sorts of people who don't know me and my many fine personal qualities 
say absolutely dreadful things about me.  What can you do?  Have them 
killed, of course, but that's *so* expensive." --Jon Carroll
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 07:59:54 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life begins at ...
 <1993Jan21.211342.6241@ncar.ucar.edu> <93022.013032KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1993Jan22.202321.15474@ncar.ucar.edu>

In article <1993Jan22.202321.15474@ncar.ucar.edu>, kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu
(Brian Kauffman) says:

>>>['Life HAS no beginning' idea is kicked around]
>>Life ends, though. Doesn't that imply a beginning as well?
>No.
>[...]
>EG: family trees can end, but they don't begin out of non-living matter.

I can tell you with certainty when a tree's 'life' begins, and when it ends.
Ditto for a human (though you won't agree. :)

>Note: I'm assuming you don't want to talk about the beginning
>of all life on earth, many moons ago.

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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Save your clues for yourself, Peter - you need them more.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:36:58 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <nyikos.727650381@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>Maybe you even think *I* conspire with homophobes, judging from your
>aggressive post in which you told me to check out the real world.  I
>posted a long reply to that, and never saw you follow up, although
>Larry Margolis did, making snide remarks indicating that he has no
>idea of the relative risk of AIDS from anal intercourse vis-a-vis
>vaginal intercourse.  [Free clue: there is a difference.]

Of course there's a difference, and I'm well aware of this fact, so any
inference on your part that my remarks indicated no difference is most
likely a result of your oft-demonstrated lack of reading comprehension.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Documenting claims for Mark Cochran (Was: Proposed...FAQ)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:23:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.064052.11972@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1993Jan25.000639.27048@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan21.080314.12430@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>
>>>>       Proposition A: According to Keegan's stated opinion, anyone who asks
>>>>                      whether Elizabeth is pro-choice is a fool
>>>
>>>        Proposition B: You asked if Ms. Bartley is pro-choice
>>>
>>>        Conclusion 1: You are, as much as can be discerned of Keegan's opinion
>>>                      of you, from the above declarations, a fool
>>
>>Correct.
>
>That's all I was attempting to point out, ...

Backpedal, Larry, backpedal. Squirm. Wriggle.

The ORIGINAL point of contention was whether Keegan in effect called Mark
Cochran a fool. Whether Keegan called me a fool is irrelevant and immaterial,
nor do I suspect does ANYONE really give a shit what Keegan says of me.

I have shown why Keegan in effect called Mark Cochran a fool, Larry. Unless you
can actually show some defect in my reasoning (and I don't mean just posting a
load of nauseating pseudo-logic like you did recently), I think the honest and 
upstanding thing would be for you to admit that you were wrong.

								- Kevin

UNRETRACTED LIES
----------------

"We've just seen Steve Kellmeyer and Don Beaver come out of the closet on 
 this issue:  they don't want women to have the right to abort."
				16 Nov 1992 12:04:09 -0800
				<1e8urpINNkjl@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>

"Well, I asked Don, on this net.  And he said he'd be perfectly happy to use
 his vote as blackmail."
				20 Nov 1992 08:22:30 -0800
				<1ej3c6INNib1@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Mark Pundurs, dust your saw off for Marcus C.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:01:40 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>What ethics?  

You wouldn't know ethics if you fell over them, "Nyikos".

>Peter Nyikos

                      -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 23:47:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.222122.26394@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.152124.8182@seachg.uucp> 
>chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask) writes:
>> No one is "pro-abortion".  
>
>There are several self-described "pro-abortionists" on the net,
Quite true.

>along with a few pro-choicers who believe that infanticide and
>abortion are not immoral. 
Don't know to which you're referring. If you're referring to
me, you should really note that I don't believe that there exists
any act X of which one could truthfully say that X is immoral.
Therefore, it follows that I do not believe that infanticide
or abortion is immoral.

>> [Pro-lifers] want to tell others what to do.  
>Pro-choicers want to tell others what to do.  They want to
>tell certain human beings that they must die.  
Nonsense. They wish to permit others to terminate their
pregnancies. Your claim is false on several counts:
1) One doesn't tell fetuses anything during an abortion.
Why would you? They can't understand it.
2) There are pro-choicers who will never have anything to
do with an abortion (for instance, they are male and have no
contact with medical professionals) and therefore would
never tell certain human beings that they must die even given
(1).

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: PAS or Post Abortion Syndrome
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:30:12 GMT

In <sfLaKdu00WBMM0YX1o@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 19-Jan-93 Re: PAS or Post Abortion
>Sy.. by Peter Nyikos@math.scarol 
>> As Meg Greenfield put it in _Newsweek_ a good number of years back, talking
>> about dishonest polemic: all your opponent has to do is say "There is no
>> evidence that..." and you are cooked.
>>  
>> So was NancyJo Mann, founder of WEBA and living counterexample to the
>> benighted statement made in JAMA.

>    Of course, it is possible to feel immense guilt if you feel you should.
>That fact that there do exist women who so brainwashed that they would
>feel guilty about having an abortion has no implications for either the
>morality of abortion or the feelings of a normal woman who has an
>abortion.  I wouldn't be surprised if one of the NancyJo Mann's of the
>Victorian era managed to grow on her palms.

>Michael Loomis

Michael, with all due respect, you have no idea whereof you speak.
Read the foreword to _Aborted Women, Silent No More_.  It details
Nancyjo Mann's descent into a psychological inferno having nothing
to do with brainwashing and everything to do with holding her dead
5-and-a-half months' gestation daughter after feeling her death throes for
two solid hours as its lungs and skin were burned by a salt solution
so potent that when a bit of it leaks outside the uterus, the woman
will throw herself on the bed and scream with agony.  These leaks
can be fatal, too.

Larry Margolis can send you a photocopy of this foreword that I 
copied and mailed to him at my expense.  He obviously has no use for it.

Peter Nyikos
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: numbers
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:23:16 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <1993Jan27.195319.11839@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
}>It seems like the numbers keep creeping up.  1.3 million, 1.4 million,
}>1.5 million, 1.6 million.  It looks like about .1 million a semester.
}>Soon, some bright cookie will look at the numbers, and just simply
}>round off to the closest million, and say 2 million.  Then some clown
}>like me will probably round off to the nearest billion, and say 
}>zero.  No problem.  It's all in the way you look at it...
}
}Is there some point being made here?

Well, yes, actually.  I think that the reported stats are somewhere
around 1.4 million.  The 1.5 million and 1.6 million numbers seem to
be speculation or fabrication (perhaps others would like to describe
"fabrication" as "extrapolation").   

But numbers do not make the problem, nor do they make the problem
worse or better.  First, we should examine if there is indeed a 
problem (magnitude is not important), identify the problem, and if
a problem exists direct efforts at that, rather than at numbers.

Shoot, we could reduce the rate of abortion to zero if we killed 
all the women.  It's all in the way you look at it...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 00:06:09 GMT

In article <C19GG9.7q6@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>
>Could someone please explain why it is not "violating her [or his] right to 
>bodily autonomy" when we kill the fetus?

What's the point of the question? Even if abortion does violate the BA rights
of the fetus, the fetus'es BA rights are weaker than those of the pregnant
woman, so the result is the same as if the fetus has no BA rights of all.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:58:47 GMT

<zdp3+mf@rpi.edu> (rocker) writes:
> The focus of the Clinton
> administration's family planning policies will be the _prevention_
> of unwanted pregnancies, unlike the previous repressive regimes whose
> policies on family planning consisted of a big, cheery "Just say no!"

I'd like to see you defend your description of the Reagan/Bush
administrations as "repressive" concerning abortion and family
planning issues.  They refused to put the power and purse of the 
federal government behind many activities and institutions, it is
true, but that is not "repressive", now is it?  Is there any 
woman in America who wanted an abortion in the last 12 years
who was prevented from getting one by the acts of the Reagan
or Bush administations?  Did they stop even one abortion?
Refusing to fund or participate in abortions is *not* the same
thing.  All the federal policies concerning abortion that I am
aware of, for example, the Hyde Amendment, are of this nature.
Maybe you know something I don't?

The only Reagan/Bush policy I think could possibly be construed
as "repressive" (depending on one's position on many issues)
might be their efforts to repeal Roe v. Wade.  And all that
can be said on that front is that they tried to be "repressive"
and failed miserably.

-- 
|   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._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Gennifer Flowers: Transcript
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 17:46:28 GMT

In article <1jh3bbINNmoj@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>In article <BAGCHI.93Jan18234657@quip.eecs.umich.edu>, bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi) writes:

>|> 	That's very nice, John, and I'm sure you worked very hard
>|> on your project.  But seeing as the election's over, nobody really cares.

:)

>Working on the world's largest legal/news database has its advantages.  I just
>thought it was timely to note that Clinton has a history of giving government
>jobs to people who have no qualifications other than that they are a FOB

One person is a history?

>(Friend OF Bill).  I wonder how low Ron Brown would rank on a skills test for
>Secretary of Commerce.  Is this the "change" you voted for?

Certainly higher than Ed Meese would rank for Justice.  Okay, he *was*
acquainted with the justice system, but from the other side.

Why would Ron Brown *not* be a good Sec of Commerce?  Whatever it is
that Sec of Commerce's do, that is?  He can lobby for allowing nuclear
weapons sales to Iraq just as well as any Republican.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Another for Dougie
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 03:21:35 GMT

From the concurring opinion in Roe v. Wade, written by Justice Burger.
(Anyone have access to this online?)

	Burger concluded: "Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim
	that the Constitution requires abortion on demand."

	-Sarah Weddington, _A Question of Choice_, Grosset/Putnam,
	1992.  p. 163

               -rocker