HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Keywords: selective editing
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:52:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.154132.1809@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1992Sep11.123957.2004@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
#decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
#
## You claim that if Gloria Feldt supports the Freedom of Choice
## Act, and because she bases her reasoning about abortion
## partly on religious views, she is trying to make her religion
## the law of the land.  But the Freedom of Choice Act is not
## a religious law, nor is it based on religious law, and in
## fact, from what you quote her as saying about her religious
## beliefs, the Freedom of Choice Act runs counter to them.
#
#Fine, then let's apply your reasoning to the pro-life side.
#A pro-lifer who bases their reasoning about abortion partly
#on religious views and who supports the Human Life Amendment
#is not attempting to make their personal religious views
#the law of the land, according to Dean Kaflowitz.  I'll
#remember your reasoning the next Steve Novak or some other 
#rabid pro-abortionist spouts off about "religious fundies" 
#forcing their religious views on others.  I'll remind them
#that Dean Kaflowitz believes that these people are not
#forcing their religious views on others. 

You'll be lying if you "remind" people of this, but judging
by past experience, lying bothers you not at all.  Dean said
something quite different than your bizarre interpretation
of his words.

I know that you desperately want to find an excuse other than
anti-Semitism for your obsession with Ms. Feldt's quote, but
you haven't shown one yet.  Feel free to keep trying, though.
It's as entertaining to watch you twist other people's words,
misquote them, and lie about facts as it is to watch the 
official virus try to flame.


#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#
      -- dking@nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)  <Insert header info here
      -- gjh@virginia.edu (Galen Hekhuis)
      -- chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) <Insert header info here
      -- cookc@rpi.edu (rocker)
      -- steven@jaynes.uswest.com (Steve Novak)
      -- smccabe@mn.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah McCabe)
      -- lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
      -- keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) <1992Sep5.143800.4607
						    @crd.ge.com#
      -- decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
      --bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
   "Neither do I" -- ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) <2ymn8gh.ray@netcom.com# 

What is it about Judaism that bothers you so, Holtsinger?

Susan







Article 84239 of talk.abortion:
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Doug Holsinger: Anti-Semite?
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:08:17 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

I've seen the following quote in Doug Holtsinger's signature in several
messages, and I've grown more offended by it each time I've seen it.

In article <1992Aug30.232948.17241@ncsu.edu#, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug
Holtsinger) wrote:
# 
#       "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#

Gloria Feldt is accurately summarizing, as I understand it, the Talmudic
point of view regarding personhood.  I see no evidence that, unlike you,
Ms. Feldt is attempting to impose her point of view on anyone else.  Do
you have a specific problem with this, Mr. Holtsinger?  Do you object to
the beliefs or practices of the Jewish religion?  What point are you 
attempting to make with this?

Oh, and for the record, I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this
statement, either.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: The mother of all Sonogram wars
Keywords: Saddam Hussein. NOT.
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:33:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.014203.4327@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean) writes:
>
>What's with the sonogram reference?  Are sonograms supposed to
>change the way pro-choicers think?  Isn't this the same warped
>line of reasoning held by that "I'm talking psychology not
>science" guy, that if women had disgusting goo-people growing
>on the *outside* of their bellies then there would be less
>abortions in the world?

Whoops. BIG mistake on your part. 

Arguments over sonogram readings revolve around proving or disproving
your "blob of cells" claim. 

That b.s. helps majorly blow out the foundations of the pro-choice
argument. 

That and if you take a look at all the instances in which women saw
the fetuses, you'll see that more than 50% turn abortion down. How do
you think Shari Richards caused such a disaster in the clinic she
worked in? 

Do you think she "drew" a fetus and plastered it on the sonogram
screen? NOT. She showed it as was, to the patient, and cost her boss
$200 on the spot. 

>I'm still pro-choice.  Does that make me evil?

No. Just stupid. 


=============================================================================
>##       "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>
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36370 alt.abortion.inequity:3698
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Shakespeare on Abortion (was Re: Observations)
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:46:00 GMT

In article <Sep14.171054.18972@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.170820.26844@crd.ge.com>, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>|> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>|> ->      Nobody on the pro-life side (that I know of)
>|> -> proposes to enact state controls over the womb.
>|> 
>|> are you suggesting that you know of no single
>|> anti-choicer who supports legislation to prohibit or
>|> restrict abortion?
>|> 
>|> please.
>|> 
>|> mosogyny is one thing; out-and-out lying is another.
>
>	Did you read the whole article, or just that one line?  I myself would
>outlaw most abortions, by which I mean the intentional or criminally negligent
>killing of an unborn child.  This does not mean I wish to control the mother's
>womb.  As far as I'm concerned, she can remove the child from her womb at her
>pleasure provided she does not kill it.


In my own struggles with this question, I've found this to be a 
valid solution on the face of the matter, but it has made me wonder:

Did Shakespeare write "The Merchant of Venice" with this in mind?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: What is consciousness? (was Re: The christian perspective...?)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 04:58:01 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) wrote (in article <1992Sep15.005154.9711@nntp.uoregon.edu>):
>Unfortunatly, intuitive concepts don't work very well in valid
>arguementation.
>And I have a real problem with things people say are "intuitive."  It's to
>much of a relative term for me.

I agree with you, but I suspect that if I were to go through an
encyclopedia with you and ask you what things therein possessed
"consciousness", we'd probably only disagree on a few of them.

>Please define more clearly what you mean by consciousness and provide a test
>to prove that some does have it.  Without this, it is a meaningless concept.

Okay, lemme take a stab at it.  The dictionary defines 'consciousness'
as "awareness of one's own feelings, what is happening around one,
etc."  'Conscious' is "having a feeling or knowledge (of one's own
sensations, feelings, etc. or of external things); knowing or feeling
(that something is or was happening or existing); aware; cognizant."

This is still something of a flaky definition, but better than
nothing.  I would add that conscious implies memory and the capability
to learn, and that "feelings" implies moods or emotions.

How does this apply to the real world?  An ant's actions are governed
by instinct and simple chemicals alone; it probably never stops to
think that it's hungry or uncomfortable.  Neither does a computer,
whose actions are governed by a finite-state program.

Studies have been shown on newborn babies that they suck more
vigorously on a plastic sensor nipple when their mother's voice is
played to them, and less quickly when another woman's voice is played.
(I saw this one on TV -- really impressive!)  They cry (loudly!) when
they're uncomfortable (too warm or cold, for example), and they gurgle
when they're happy.

A two-month fetus doesn't have a functioning brain, so I'd think it's
not capable of satisfying the dictionary definition of
"consciousness."

I'm out of my element in this discussion; I haven't studied the
philosophy of conscious thought.  Therefore I'll admit that it should
be fairly easy to blow holes in my arguments above (so I'll welcome
anyone who can help me say what I'm trying to say).  But it seems
rather obvious to me that certain things possess consciousness while
others don't.

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36686 alt.abortion.inequity:3790
From: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 15 Sep 92 22:29:32 GMT
Reply-To: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <1992Sep10.051815.13372@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <3arnw4#.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) 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? :-)
>>>>I'll pay you $5.00 if you post it to talk.rape.
>>>Why do you think this would offend anybody, as it is the literal truth?
>>Many women (and men) would (and do) find deeply offensive your apparent 
>>belief that rape could in any way be considered "the kindness of a man."
>I'll pay YOU the $5.00 dollars if you can find ANY posting of mine that
>EVER says that 'rape could in any way be considered "the kindness of a man."'

Let's see: "The best I can hope for is that you will someday realize that
no woman can have babies without the kindness of a man."  To rephase
(without changing the logic):  women with babies got them due to the
kindness of a man.  (took out two negative "no" and "without").

Yes, rape is NOT mentioned.  Nor is excluded.  Some women become pregnant
due to rape; under the more extremeist anti-aborts proposals (I'm not
claiming that they are yours, just the people you associate with) she
could not have an abortion; so she ends up with a baby.  Thus, since a
baby exists, according to your logic, it was due to the "kindness of a 
man".  Sorry, please go back to school and take a logic class.

If you had made a specific exclusion for rape, then I'd have to let you
off the hook here, but you didn't so I won't.

>John
>stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Fodder for DOD's .sig (Was: Pro-Choice Challenge)
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 01:48:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.233446.4618@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
>
>Since DOD edited my comments for his .sig, maybe you didn't see
>the question that I've asked him repeatedly.  I keep asking
>him what it is about Judaism that bothers him, and he keeps
>deleting the question and not answering it.  This is not the
>only instance of Holtsinger implying that there is something
>wrong with Judaism and its beliefs.  I think that he's a bigot.
>H
>The comments he makes about the quotes are offensive.  I stand
>by my statement that I see nothing extreme or despicable about
>the quote, and I think that Galen and Dan sincerely share my
>feelings.  I hope that Holtsinger adds their names, and many
>more - at least that way we'll have an easy way to tell who is
>anti-Semitic around here - their names won't be on his list.

Intimidation tactics. I, for one, feel absolutely no need to get myself
on Doug's stupid list in order to "prove" I'm not an anti-Semite, Susie.
If you think I'm one (ha!), then the burden of proof is on YOU to 
demonstrate it. You don't get to use Holtsinger as your anti-Semite "litmus 
test".

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.kevin-darcy,alt.flame
From: rissa@world.std.com (Patricia O Tuama)
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Followup-To: news.net-cops.kevin-darcy
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 05:19:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.202554.10708@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>he then asked darcy (excuse me for a minute, i'm
>laughing too hard to type. there, i'm back.) to
>moderate.

Somebody asked Kebbin Darcy to moderate a newsgroup?  


Hahahaahahahahaahahahaha!




God, I love the net.


----------
Kebbin to dac:
> >...my taunt didn't exactly produce the desired result.
> Inept bungling rarely does.

I'd listen to him, dac.

On the subject of inept bungling, few people are more experienced than Mr.
Darcy.
					lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
					<17500@goofy.Apple.COM>	
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:35:23 GMT

In article <88953@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
>Eric
>>Kevin
>>No, I asked you to apologize to them for implying that refusing to
>>have sex was a sure way to avoid getting pregnant, which is what
>>your original post implies.
>
>I in no way ever said that abstinence would not get a woman raped.  You are
>just going to drill me with this issue, aren't you.
Probably.

>  If I talk about one
>particular thing, Eric, I do not have to talk about EVERY particular thing
>that comes with the territory.
If you make a blanket statement, you have a responsibility to disclaim
specific instances that you do not intend. If you do not do so, you
should not be surprised if people take you to mean those instances
as well.

>>Abstinence can be a difficult thing, sir. It is quite difficult to be
>>Your snide response that "pants" is a perfect contraceptive reminds
>>me of nothing more than the implication that a woman who was
>>raped "wanted it".
>
>Oh give me a break, Eric Rescorla.  You let yourself off to be
>such a crusader.
I'm not a crusader, Kevin. I'm just a guy who got pissed off by
what you said.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: SIMPLE ANSWER
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:29:10 GMT

In article <11SEP92.21221566@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>
>I have a question about this - how many health insurance plans cover abortion 
>services (other then to save the life of the woman)?  Does anyone know of any 
>HMOs that will pay for an elective abortion?  The one I work for won't.
>

I'm not certain, but I believe that my health insurance (private company)
does pay for abortions services.  I've never looked it up.  I know that
at another company for which I worked, abortions were covered--100%.

Jennifer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:29:41 GMT

Actually I put the dividing line at the beginning of "myelination" in
the brain, which I see as the last clear-cut step needed before the
brain can come "on-line".  This is at 23-24 weeks, which
coincidentally is the the current viability age.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 21:29:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Keywords: abortion, rape, sexual battery

sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes ...
>In article <-cnnv-b.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>|> 
>|> So then, this is rather wordy intro to the question: what is a human being?
>
>A human being, medically, is the organism which results from the union of
>the sperm and the egg, causing a "joining" of chromosomes, one set from the
>father and one set from the mother, which creates a new "instruction set" which
>from then on directs the ontogenesis of the new organism.

I wasn't aware that medicine had defined "human being."  I thought they 
dealt in bodies and body parts.  Which medical textbook(s) did you refer
to?

>	The definition for "person," on the other hand, is a matter of personal
>opinion.  The definition necessarily involves value judgements, and in the case
>of abortion it involves value judgements of the most bizarre kind.  
[frothings deleted]
>Rationalizations abound, but they all fail on one point or another.  Anyway, in
>the end, even the rationalizations themselves are mere opinions, value judgements
>containing many debatable assumptions.  What are the rationalizations for the
>rationalizations?  I don't know.

In other words, you admit that you can't come up with a definition, but
expect everyone to accept your word that a zygote is a person.

Right.  And I suppose you want to sell me a house, cheap, in Dade county,
Florida too?  Maybe an extra bridge thrown in as a bonus?

I think you've been wearing your crown a little tight, lately.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to ...
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 19:39:12 GMT

<168578928.M21164@mwvm.mitre.org> M21164@mwvm.mitre.org said:
><fcknh0m.gordons@netcom.com>gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>                                    .... The supreme court basically said
>>that up until a certain time in the pregnancy a woman may choose for
>>herself whether or not to have an abortion.  How is that forcing anything
>>on any one?  Unless of course, you mean offending the delicate        
>>sensibilities of the pro-lifers.
> 
>For a long time similar logic was used to defend the practice of owning slaves.
>"You think slavery is wrong? Well, then don't own one! But don't try to force
>*your* belief system on me"  Slavery only offended the delicate sensibilities
>of the prohibitionists.

I abhor the concept of slavery - like making a woman serve the
needs of a fetus against her will.

>This brings us quicky to the crux of the abortion argument, 

Oh goody, Yet Another Crux of The Abortion Argument.

>                                                            because it will be
>pointed out that slavery involves the rights of another person but, according
>the pro-choice view, abortion does not.  Well, pro-lifers believe it does,
>and unbelievable though it may seem to some, there are numerous thoughtful and
>resonable people in the pro-life crowd.  

I don't doubt that, we just see damn few of them in this forum.  BTW, does
the number of people who believe something suddenly make that thing
*right* or *true*?

>                                         This is why the issue of abortion
>belongs not in the judicial, but in the legislative arena, where resonable
>people can argue the merits of each side.  That's what democracy's for.

Certain rights should not be left up to the majority to decide.  You made
the argument of Black Slavery before...  Do you think it should be the
legislative right of each state to decide whether owning slaves should be
legal?

We have a democracy in the USA, but the Constitution does not allow the
majority to remove rights from the minority.  That's one of the important
aspects of the Constitution, and what seperates the USA from other
countries - Democratic or not.



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