HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:10:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep01.052644.22782@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

> The statement that the states *may* enact legislation is correct.  The
> Pennsylvania legislation was struck down in Colautti v. Franklin for
> vagueness, *not* because the Supreme Court ruled that the states may
> not enact such legislation.  

The states may not enforce legislation which would require the physician
to employ the abortion technique which would most likely result in 
a fetus aborted alive, since that type of legislation was struck
down in Colautti v. Franklin.

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


Doug Holtsinger

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

  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: IT WAS ONLY A DEBATING DEVICE...
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 19:38:17 GMT


   I have been accused of bargaining with women's rights.  I must
explain what took place.  I had suggested, mostly in jest, a swap
with the compulsary pregnancy pushers.  I implied that I would be
willing to outlaw all late term abortions if any anti-abortionist
types agreed to allow ALL women unrestricted access to early term
abortions.  This was nothing more than a device to see what folks
would say.  This is NOT a reflection of my feelings about choice.
While I may unresolved feelings about the financing of abortions,
I am consistent in my support of abortion on request for each and
every American woman, regardless of circumstance.  It is nobody's
business but hers.  To force any woman to give birth, against her
will, is one of the most repugnant things that I can think of.  I
would also like to that the gentleman who suggested that I should
clarify my position.  I can see how someone might have gotten the
wrong idea.
-- 
   "We're going to have the best educated American people in the
world."                              Dan Quayle - Sept. 21, 1988
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33910 alt.politics.clinton:3417 alt.politics.bush:3391
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Date: 2 Sep 92 11:45:15 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

In article <1992Sep1.190144.141@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> In <1992Aug31.225918.13549@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
->    (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
-> In article <1992Aug31.144107.23778@acd4.acd.com>
->    wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
-> In <1992Aug30.040031.5439@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
->     (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >>>
-> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu 
->    (Doug Holtsinger) writes: >>>>
-> >>>> I don't believe that I've ever insulted Ms. Garvin.
-> 
-> >>> denial is unhealthy doodie.  see your therapist.
->  
-> >> Passive-aggressive behavior is also unhealthy, Jim.
-> 
-> > that is is, bill, that it is.
-> 
-> >> Your implication is extremely prejudicial.  
-> 
-> > what implication is that, bill?
-> 
-> i.e., "Who, me?"  

this is beneath you, bill, at least i think it is.
suggestions that crazies (chaney, DOD, darcy, franklin,
etc.) seek help are made daily, sometimes more often
than that. there were, in fact, several examples of
that on the day my post appeared. (i replied to two of
these, noting your comment.) the reason i did this was
to illustrate that your "prejudicial" reply to my post
was itself a good example of a prejudicial remark.

-> >> Are people in therapy somehow unworthy of your
-> >> respect?
-> 
-> > i don't know where you'd get that idea bill. can
-> > you tell me? do you think there's something
-> > unhealthy with suggesting that a person may need
-> > help gets it?
-> 
-> Only when it's done to derogate.

i think you're wrong, bill, even if you do have the
power to read intent whenever any of these posts are
made. i find it amusing that mine was the first of
the hundreds that appear all the time on which you
commented. of course, this could simply be an
illustration of your intent-reading capabilities.

perhaps your singling out of my remark was a sign of
something else. if that's the case, feel free do
discuss your feelings which appear, well, erratic.
-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:13:29 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <176sg0INN27n@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
>Subject: Re: Observations
>Date: 23 Aug 92 02:17:36 GMT

>In article <1992Aug21.122726.2141@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>>> In article <16ujc6INNm80@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>Mike, let me guess.
>>>>You are a *young* man, right?  Probably not a man with a long standing
>>>>relationship, and probably not with 4 kids already, right?  
>>
>>BTW, I'm young, I don't think my relationship is really all that long
>>standing in the lifetime sense, and I don't have four kids already,
>>so does that make me any more or less of a thinker?

>Sort of depends upon what you are thinking about.

>I find it very odd when adult people, with long standing relationships and
>kids, and all that, figure *sex* is something filthy that must be hidden
>beneath the couch, where there just isn't a whole lot of room.  Many 
>religions, for that matter, acknowledge the 'bonding' aspects of sex in
>the construct of a marriage -- i.e., you are specifically NOT supposed to
>reject your partners overtures for sex within a marriage, in any long standing
>way, because it's considered normal and beneficial for adult married peole
>to be expressing their closeness in that manner.  So, for someone to pop up
>spouting "If you are don't having kids, stop having sex" seems to me to be
>a little...well, actually, it seems to me to be a lot of strange things, so
>I'll settle for amusing, here.

>>Anyone know the origin of marriage?


>There are about a zillion theories, in differing cultures, and with differing
>levels of evolution, but you can't find a single attorney in the state of
>California who can tell you *all* the laws pertaining to marriage (mostly
>because they change with case law, but what the heck.)

>Marriage is mostly an economic institution, in the legal sense.  It's about
>where the money goes.  Spouses usually override children, though marriage
>certainly has an impact upon children, too.

>What did you want to know about marriage?

>Adrienne Regard

How about: Would marriage exist at all without the sex urge?  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        Abstract Arts BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:51:03 GMT

In <Btrrt3.4w5.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

About the Becky Bell tragedy:

>Death certificates are part of the public record, Nyikos.  If you feel
>a need to pry further into someone's personal tragedy, you can
>obtain a copy of the death certificate yourself.  You call Willke's
>argument-with-an-agenda "better documented."   Did it not
>include the coroner's report and the death certificate?

It had a lot to say about it, and I will be quoting extensively
from it, when I get a little time. [BTW O'Keeffe & Jones provided
no documentation at all.]

  In the meantime, I leave you
with this thought: coroners are
not necessarily up on what deaths due to abortion are like.
They're awfully rare, or have you forgotten?  Could be this
was the first alleged case this particular coroner had ever dealt
with.  

Also, the autopsy did not say "induced abortion," it said
"abortion."  Did the coroner say on 60 minutes that in his
opinion, it was an induced abortion?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: OH, DOUG...
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 05:53:20 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  <1992Aug31.231655.20095@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.220411.26057@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>
> > We now know ABSOLUTELY what you think of abortion in the third
> > trimester of pregnancy.
>
> No, you don't.
>
> > What the question is still waiting to be
> > answered.  Is there ANY elective abortion to which a woman should
> > have unfettered access?
>
> As I had stated before in a previous post, I have not yet taken a
> position on specific legislation.

OK, forget about legislation.  Do you think early term abortions are OK
if the woman wants one?  That would certainly seem to be a reasonable
assumption, since you're focusing on the less than 0.01% of abortions
which would not be banned even under the extremist Republican platform
position which allows for no exceptions for rape or incest.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: What if???
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 23:47:00 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


hd>In article <j1moody-010992232532@lafmac15.lafortune.lab.nd.edu> j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty
Dumpty) writes:
 
hd>What if the human fetus developed on the outside of the mothers stomach,
hd>where everyone could see the eyes, ears, nose, etc. forming?

hd>I'm not talking science here, I'm talking psychology.

I think if the fetus was on the outside of the woman, it may become 
even easier for the fetus fanatics to ignore the woman.  I don't see
this as a good thing.

hd>We humans have a tendancy to disregard with ignorance things we cannot see.

Care to explain why so many can disregard a woman that they should 
be able to see.  I'm not making any claim that they can see the 
woman, but they sure don't have any trouble ignoring her.

hd>How tragic future generations will view our blindsided stupidity.
 
I agree.  I figure they are going to look back in amazement that we
let a group of fetus fanatics take away rights from women just to 
protect the object of their obsession.  Tragic is right.
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.rape
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Nyikos Goes Under (WAS Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 23:39:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep3.184044.29015@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>  decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> In article <1992Sep03.170850.28846@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
> > In  <nyikos.715471179@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Pet
> > > In <1992Sep1.115604.23197@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean
> > >
> > > >In article <nyikos.715287558@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina
> > > >> In <f2dng-=.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> > > >> >What ARE you going on about?  How many women decide at the last moment
> > > >> >that they have changed their mind and are forcibly held to the table
> > > >> >while the doctor performs the abortion?
> > > >>
> > > >> That is something only the abortionists know, and they aren't about
> > > >> to tell you or me or any of the "million women" you talk about below.
> > >
> > > >In other words, you have nothing to go by and are just
> > > >constructing bizarre scenarios in the dimly lit theater
> > > >of your mind.
> > >
> > > And after I posted the case of the Fort Lauderdale doctor, you conveniently
> > > forgot having said this, and ripped into me about the pointlessness of
> > > my post.
> >
> > The question was, "How many women decide at the last moment
> > that they have changed their mind and are forcibly held to the table
> > while the doctor performs the abortion?"  The story you posted was
> > about a woman who *never* wanted an abortion, but was forcibly given one,
> > and raped, by her husband.  It certainly seems pointless to me, or at
> > least totally unrelated to the question.  What was the point?
>
> Thank you, Larry.  When I answered his article I had also not yet
> read the article to which he refered, since it spooled later on our
> system, so I got it confused with another story he told that was
> similarly a red herring.  But I agree with your point
> entirely and also would like to add, for possibly the thousandth
> time for me, that pro-choice means being in favor of allowing
> women to decide for themselves whether or not to get abortions,
> and that forcing someone to have an abortion is equally as
> reprehensible as forcing someone to not have an abortion.

You should probably also add that just because the Fort Lauderdale doctor
and Peter Nyikos are both anti-choice does not mean you're attempting to
imply that Mr. Nyikos would attempt to do what the doctor allegedly did.
(I realize that no reasonable person would assume that, but Mr Nyikos
seems to think that one bad person in a given cause tars everyone who
shares the same belief.)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 16:38:03 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  <1992Sep4.141259.440@sniap.mchp.sni.de>  frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de () writes:
>
> Call me old-fashioned, but *I* can't help thinking that studies
> based on psychology and statistics can't help but be complete bullshit.

Call me naive, but I can't help wondering how else you'd determine how
most people feel.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Should FetalIdolators Be allowed as 'moderators'????
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:25:03 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <29159@option.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.110513.4025@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com
>
>I read Richard Pitts offer to moderate with a combination of aghast

For your information, it was not an offer to moderate.  It was a
statement of my inability to be an unbiased moderator.  Much less,
if you didn't read the first post on this, I was in the list of seven
or eight people that were suggested and so my post was in response
to that proposal.

>repulsion and humorous fascination: Can this guy be serious?  I was

My original post is below, so if you want, please explain why you think 
I am not serious.  I think I honestly expressed my views. 

>too busy to bother posting to tell Richard, thanks, but no thanks, but
>but now that drieux [tm] has posted this, I wanted to reply.

DRIEUX (whoops) is simply responding to my position of being pro-life,
as he sees his viewpoint as being the correct one, as everyone else does, too.

|I thought this might have gone by the wayside.  I was mentioned as
|one of the possible moderators and I think given some approval by
|others.   Thanks.
|
|I do wish the vast amount of flaming and personal attacks were 
|not present, but I don't know if I could be an unbiased moderator -
|maybe that makes me a little qualified, I don't know. :-)  To be 
|honest my stomach and spirit churns at some of the things I see 
|posted and so I would not want to have to read over things with 
|which I strongly disagree to the point of approving the posting 
|of the same.  [I guess that's is what a moderator is to do, 
|correct?]  Does that make sense?  Additionally, I may soon lose my
|net access, but you never know.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts


-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: DearOldDoug DraftDodger....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 11:24:02 GMT

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
] In article <1992Aug27.021950.4211@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] 
] }       Who are we to decide whether any person is fit to live or
] }not?  That's a judgement which I can't make for someone else, nor 
] }would I want anyone else to make that judgement for me.  
] 
] Gee Doug, I didn't realize you were a CO also.  I take it you refused
] to serve in the military?  What did you do about the draft?


MINOR technical point here Galen....

its the 'nor would I want anyone else to make that judgement for me.'
part that brings out the Real: "I am a Wimp" Factor for DearOldDoug.

Right up to that point He could have been Cannonfodder
below the grade of NCO.

Which of course is why there are NCO's to clarify the
'firing orders' - Someone COMPETENT needs to be around
to stipulate when and where to show Whom with What!

"First Squad, Suppressive Fire, Tree Line To the Right, On My command."

ciao
drieux


ps: NOW there is MORAL ABSOLUTES!!!!!



-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Badm
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Keywords: Reinforcements
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 15:48:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.201509.20929@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>and in the process, it created a constitutional right to kill certain
>members of the human species.  An unquestioned right to kill human 
>beings is a very dangerous concept, in my opinion.

<splutter>

What do you *mean*, an unquestioned right?  I thought questioning,
attacking, and defending the right to abortion was the purpose of 
this newsgroup.


.
-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 15:43:25 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@


Whoopie Goldberg self-aborted with a coatthanger as a teenager.
She tells her story in the book, _The Choices We Made_.

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:11:57 GMT

Just in case there was any doubt about the mindset of some of the
Republican Party's leading lights, Pat Robertson recently wrote a
letter criticizing the Equal Rights Amendment, suggesting that
feminists want women to kill their children and practice witchcraft.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:45:09 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>In article <94996@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug27.205422.12420@noao.edu>
>>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>
>>>From article <94392@bu.edu>, by kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star):
>>
>>>>Disdain of homosexuality is learned. Are you going to teach your daughter
>>>>to frown upon two women or two men holding hands in public?
>>
>>>Like I said, I think y'all are just paranoid.   You see hatred even where
>>>there isn't any.
>>
>>Hmmm...I suppose all that stuff you wrote about "homosexuality and
>>misogyny being connected" and  how "gay relationships were naturally
>>inferior to straight relationships in the eyes of God" and how "children
>>should not be raised in same-sex households" is all a figment of
>>my imagination...

>Let's not forget MissBitch's comment about how Gay men "Hate women because
>they won't have sex with them".

I don't understand her logic here (surprise.)  Could someone explain to me
why a person who had no desire to have sex with a woman would hate her for 
not wanting to have sex with him?  Seems like the gay man would be just
happy with that situation. 

I must be confused.

 -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: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:08:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
[in response to Mark Ira Kaufman]
>
>And you were one of the very people who goaded me into posting it,
>as I explained along another thread.  You refused to believe that
>I had evidence of forced abortions.

You haven't produced evidence of forced abortions yet.  You've
produced evidence of one forced abortion.  Singular, not plural.

So then for that year, assuming that about 1.4 million abortions
are performed in the US each year, the rate of forced abortions
compared to all abortions is about, oh, say 0.00007% (approximately).

How does that compare to the odds of dying of childbirth?

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Night of the Living Kidney Analogy -- the Sequel
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:02:20 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <1992Aug24.203014.15935@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:

>In <5737@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

>>Forcing a woman to take these risks against her will is degrading mothers to
>>the status of slaves.  How can you require another human being to undergo
>>agony and bleeding to satisfy your own mores?

>>--Teddi

>Oh, silly Teddi! You fail to understand Peter's logic. Obviuosly,
>they're not human beings--they're just women!

Who authorized you to speak for me?  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion