HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 01:20:06 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
# >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# 
# >> Roe v. Wade created a constitutional right to "terminate a pregnancy"
# >> and it created a constitutional right to kill certain members of the
# >> human species.
# 
# > False, this is a consequence of the above, similar to preventing someone
# > from walking off with your valuables while in your house by shooting
# > them. This action is also legal, and it involves the right to kill certain
# > members of the human species. 
# 
# There is no constitutional right to kill a burglar.  In some states,
# it's not legal to kill a burglar, even if they're walking off with
# your valuables.  
# 
# Roe v. Wade created a constitutional right to kill certain members 
# of the human species. 

Uh oh.  Now you've done it.

Now Drieux is gonna go off about his constitutional right to kill
certain members of the human species.

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

"When people reached the last drop of their drinks, the face of Larry
Storch would seem to look out at them from the bottom, belch
contentedly and say, ``Now I am truly what I always was.  Pass the
corn nuts.''"
						     -- Larne Pekowsky
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  3 Sep 92 17:17:15 GMT

In <BtzIzB.7xI@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715476331@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <181fotINNse@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

>[Petie's whine about Kaufman deleted]

>>>   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
>>>may not be both."
>>>                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel
>>
>>Have you told that to the human being whom Chaney so endearingly
>>calls PatricKKK?

>He doesn't have to, because I *am* literate, nitwit.  

>Right now, I have one hell of a situation going on in my life outside of
>work -- as I type this, my wife is lying in a bed two blocks away from
>here at Hermann Hospital, and there is a significant possibility the 
>seizure she suffered yesterday afternoon may have been 
>caused by a brain tumor.

I'm very sorry to hear about it.  Had I known, I would not have played
my little game of tit-for-tat about telling you where not to post.
Consider it unsaid.  

>I don't appreciate self-righteous little assholes like you dragging my name
>in where you have no damned business doing it -- and if you don't
>like that, you know where you can shove it.  Right now, I have enough other
>things to worry about -- much more important things than the "hurt feelings"
>of some human refuse that calls itself Peter Nyikos. 

It's not my feelings that were hurt, and in light of your wife's condition
and present inner turmoil, they are also unaffected by that "human refuse" bit.

Peter Ny.


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33877 alt.flame:12404
From: trashman@crud.mn.org (Barry Schwartz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:46:00 GMT
Organization: TSAKC-TC

In article <1992Aug27.202634.11650@noao.edu>
        forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

]Hell Gordon, why do you think Pro-Lifers laugh up their sleeves every time
]pro-"choicers" cite polls inflating their numbers?

That's where they keep their crib notes?



--
Barry Schwartz        trashman@crud.mn.org
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:58:27 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
	<BtKotw.HGH.2@cs.cmu.edu>

I had some further thoughts about Ms. Garvin's rather derogatory
comments about my last post.  

Ms. Garvin states
>Ron wasn't talking about infanticide per se, he was talking about
>euthanasia.  There is a rather large difference between the
>two.  You seem to have them confused.  This makes you look
>rather ridiculous, particularly given your attempts at flaming
>Steve Novak.

I agree Mr. Bense and Ms. Forgach were not talking of infanticide.  On
the other hand, they weren't talking about euthansia as some completely
unrelated topic.  They were talking about exactly the title of the post
THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS, and the post I quoted was on talk.abortion
and not some other bboard like talk.euthansia.  I don't really
understand your attack.  Perhaps, it is best understand in terms of one
of Mr. Novak's own post on 25-Aug-92  Re: Abstinence is the only .. 
Steve Novak@jaynes (854)          

>> = James Keegan writes:
>>-> = (Eric Marsh) writes:
> 
>>-> Holtsinger looks more like Rasmussen every day. 
> 
>>that's certainly true.
> 
>>-> Is there any support out there for a Holtsinger
>>-> boycott?
> 
>>didn't you learn your lesson with the djr boycott? half
>>the people who, like lemmings, signed it, ended up
>>replying to djr's posts anyway and looking like
>>hypocrites for doing so. 
> 
>*I* signed it after it had been in effect awhile _and honored it_ for one 
>reason: he was SO flabbergasted, he began striking in a panic against
>EVERYone like a rattlesnake pinned under a rock, his already obstinate lies 
>deteriorating into a brainless flapping similar to a tire in an 80 MPH
blowout.
> 
>He finally HAD NO ANSWER, not even a stupid lie.  
 
>It was great.
 

What a great post.  Mr. Novak is obviously a pargon of etiquitte.  When
my acquitance with someone degerates to such a level, I just ignore them
rather spend my time writing such.  On the other hand, Ms. Garvin, I
guess you consider it great fun to spend your time, answering whatever
insane drivel Mr. Chaney slobbers up.  I certainly did not mean to
offend people when I wrote in my original post that "It takes time to to
write good arguments rather to post 15 or 20 long, insane rantings in a
row in the manner Mr. Steve Chaney and some of his frequent
interlocuters".  I now now see how it may have been a little close to
the truth.  I feel "rather ridiculous" offending without any intent. 
Anyway, I can not spend any more time playing on this infantile flame
war.  So go have the last word.  I don't care.  I have better things to
do with my life.  

Michael Loomis
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Date: 4 Sep 92 04:40:56 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
Organization: Murasami Labs

In article <1992Sep3.235935.12875@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@jaynes (
Steve Novak) wrote:
> 
> Mr Aznabul deleted all of Will Steeve's comments explaining that he'd
> might kill a woman "on the spot" who DARED to tell him of getting an abortion
> "a year ago".

> Which resulted in my comment.......
>                                   |
> > = (Char Aznabul) writes:        |
> >> = Steve Novak wrote:           |
>                                   V
> >> I feel sorry for any woman dumb enough to fall for a walking time bomb
> >> like you, Will.

Which implies that he WILL kill. You sound very certain. A little kindness
and sympathy may go a long way. INSTEAD, you resort to insults and
denigration.
Does this produce any postitive results? Oh, of course, silly me. It gives
you
claim to the moral high ground.

I stand by:

> >My goodness, aren't we the epitomy of sympathy.

I'll leave this for the reader to judge your character, Novak:

> I think that was drool, Char.  Now, wipe it up and go back to sucking up
> to Will.

K'Char
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:11:09 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

>BTW, I put "pro-abortion organization" into every sentence of
>my reply. That way, you can't delete part of my response and
>ignore "pro-abortion organization". Unless you delete part
>of a sentence (pro-abortion organization).

DOD shows that he's falling apart at the seams. Regression is a horrible
thing to witness, not cute at all....

>Doug Holtsinger, wondering why Margolis relies on pro-abortion organizations
>for his information.

Maybe, Doug, you'd care to list those organizations which you will accept
as unbiased sources, so that the rest of us won't have to submit 20,000
sources to finally get one that you can't write off as "sounds like
a pro-abortion organization." Unfortunately, any organization that supports
choice is by your definition a pro-abortion organization, no matter
what their actual stance is. So I imagine the only sources we'll see
you consider unbiased are pro-lie organizations, which we all know to
be ever so thoughtful in trying to show everyone the truth. After all,
they only claim pregnancy is wonderful, and that you should be estatic
about that miracle in your tummy (even though it is going to nearly
kill you or at the least cause you to be partially paralyzed) whereas
the pro-choice organizations openly admit that abortions are dangerous
as is carrying to term, and are generally honest in their presentations.
Wonder all you want, you are obviuously clueless.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Item for Chaney's study of abortion--adult/child sex link.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:03:15 GMT
Keywords: Nyikos failing other arguments goes for guilt by association

In article <nyikos.714859323@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Aug25.231443.21218@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
> > Does the fact that this doctor did bad things some how 
> >discredit the pro-choice movement?
> 
> Of course not, no more than a few crazy bombers discredit the whole
> pro-life movement.

That is not at all accurate.  The "doctor" in question is a sick
man, if the charges are true, and very harmful, but there is nothing
to indicate that his foul behavior is an outgrowth, by-product, or
in any way connected to the fact that he performed abortions.

The clinic bombings are also the behavior of sick people, but the
difference is that the bombings are directly attributable to their
"pro-life" beliefs.

In neither instance do these behaviors discredit either side of the
issue on the whole.  Which leads me to wonder just what in hell
Peter posted them for?  If not to try to sling mud at the pro-choice
side of the issue, what was the point?

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:06:06 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.035838.2340@ncsu.edu> Doug Holtsinger says:

>What is a rare sight is prolifers admonishing
>the homophobic misogynist prolife loon, but
>then you're all one big happy family, no
>disent, no disagreements, no individuality.

Sounds like a home of the inbred.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:31:21 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>In article <nyikos.715480570@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu
> (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>Note: I am not defending the doctor in the Miami Herald article,

I don't think you would ever condone such actions...

>I am pointing out that the use of "alleged" by Rocker is normal and
>not an attempt to make the actions sound less credible, as I suspect
>Peter may have been thinking based on his reply.

and surely you don't mean to imply that this child thinks, I mean really,
he's very good at regurgitation, but digestion seems to have escaped
him for the nonce.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 00:14:47 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Distribution: usa


sp>In article <afxewrq@Unify.Com> sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
cl>In article <1992Sep1.204314.19152@pwcs.stpaul.gov>, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

cl> If it is a person at conception, do we charge the woman with involuntary
cl> manslaughter if it fails to implant?  Just for your information, about 1/3
cl> of all products of conception fail to implant and get washed out during
cl> menstration.  Just a little reality check here...
 
sp>Failure to implant and those 1/3 failures after conception you are talking about are
sp>most often from no fault of the woman, in which case she can not be blamed.
 
This not entirely true.  Many activitys of the woman can decrease her chances
of implanting and increase her chances of miscarriage.  A high stress job, 
strenuous exercise, poor diet, heavy drinking or drug intake can all lead to
high risk for the zygote/embryo.  Should a woman be forced by law to take
the necessary precautions to ensure the zygote or embryo have the maximum
opportunity for life?  Should women who are fertile and sexually active be
forbidden from high stress jobs, strenuous exercise, poor diet, or heavy
drinking and drug intake?  There is no way of knowing how many zygote
needlessly died during the women's events at the recent Olympics.  We do
know that the risk to any zygotes increased because we allowed the women
to perform at the Olympics.  Any that died during this time were clearly
the women's fault.  She killed human life just for a chance at Olympic
medal.  We allow women to seek fame and fortune at the expense of human
life.  We allow women to put their profession, if it requires high stress
or physical exertion to come before the protection of human life.  Do 
women police officers during their fertile years bother you?  

>Sean P. Curley	(sean@Unify.Com)		Unify Corporation

Dan King
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 2 Sep 1992 16:25:12 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <nyikos.715464097@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <17s3nmINN73o@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>There are lots of folks who decide not to repeat some of the dumb things
>>Suzanne says.  Maybe you have more sense than we had hitherto dreamed of.
>Don't be so hard on Suzanne. [This refers not so much to what you've just 
>said as some of the things I've heard before.] 
>Her heart is in the right place about
>99% of the time.  I wish I could say the same for you.


You could, but you won't, because you don't happen to agree with me.  You
probably shouldn't, but you will, because you happen to agree with Suzanne.
Wait til she flies off the handle and calls you something absurd, and you'll
know how the rest of us who have seen Suzanne and her handle part company
any number of times over the past few years, feel.

I haven't noticed, at any time within my entire life, that my heart has
been in the wrong place.  It doesn't move around, you know.  Oh, except
when it is compressed by a growing fetus.......

Adrienne Regard

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34230 alt.abortion.inequity:3364
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 1 Sep 92 04:19:14 GMT
     <1992Aug31.150147.12678@advtech.uswest.com>
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

>>> If it's my z/e/f/child that she is carrying, it IS partially my decision.
>>> As it's partially my z/e/f/child that would be aborted.
>>
>>Is it partially inside your body?
>
>Nope.  It is, however, partially my body.

What if the sperm mutates, and is no longer carrying your DNA?  Does that
mean it's no longer partly YOUR body?

>>Getting it out of *her* body is *her*
>>decision.  What you do *after* it's out of her body is a joint decision.
>
>I disagree.  Obviously.  Getting it INTO her body was a joint decision.

Only if both partners consented to unprotected sex, and even then the
woman should be able to do with her own body what she pleases.  If the
couple took reasonable contraceptive procedures, the question is even
more clear-cut; through no fault of their own (assuming the contraception
was used properly) the woman has been impregnated.  This is not 
negligence, and treating it as such is pointless.  Leave blame aside and
concentrate on dealing with the problem.

>Getting it out, should also be a joint decision.

I agree, it *should* be, but if the man and woman disagree, whose views
take precedence?

-- 
"Me and you, a two man crew, 
 side by side we are united,
 we will never be divided...."

                                                  Au revoir, mon cherie.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:31:50 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Sep4.153752.1234@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de writes:

> : I *feel* fine about it.  I have no moral doubts whatsoever.
> 
> Which is all that needed to be said...  Thanks.
> 
> So to say that abortion is always immoral is to call this woman and countless 
> others liars, or to deny the existence of conscience.  Any bible-thumpers 
> care to comment?

  I'm no "thumper" (hard to read that way), but lots of "evil" acts are 
performed without any moral qualms whatsoever on the parts of those committing 
them.  Does this somehow make the act or the person less evil?  Was Hitler less
evil because he truly believed he was right?  (This is just an example, please
don't accuse me of equating these people with Hitler)

  Can you say "eye of the beholder"?  I don't think she's lying, nor do I
deny the existence of conscience.

> You see, this is what I cannot understand - that everyone seems
> to "know" that (say) murder is wrong, because their conscience tells
> them so.  If abortion is supposed to be in some way equivalent to 
> murder, then why is a similar consensus missing from the abortion
> issue?  

  This is in fact not a "new" question.  See below.

> How could something which is supposed to be so *very* wrong produce 
> such divisive debate?    And how could something which is *not at all* 
> wrong produce such divisive debate? 

  Ever hear of slavery?  The American Civil War?  A lot of people thought
slavery was right and good.  A lot thought it was evil and immoral.  The latter
group won (I'm oversimplifying, but that was the net effect).  So now almost
all of us agree that slavery is evil and immoral.
 
> Isn't it because the issue is not nearly so black and white as both 
> sides would have you believe, having as much to do with delivering 
> mothers as delivering babies?
> Frank O'Dwyer		       			Disclaimer: 

  Things tend to be black and white to the victors and those who read
their histories in the decades which follow.  You are right.  It ain't black
and white to everybody.  Or rather both sides think they are light and the 
other darkness.  Conscience is a funny thing, isn't it?

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sex Sacrifice, and the USA
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:33:30 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

> Jimmy Miller
>> Dan King

>>And the only 100% reliable way to ensure this is with the option of abortion.
>>Sure there are precautions that she can take to reduce the chance of 
>>pregnancy, but not a single one of them, including abstinence, is 100%
>>reliable.                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>  Ahhhhh, Dan?  Could you maybe elaborate on this?  If abstinence = no inter-
>course, and there's no technological or religious miracles involved, how is
>this possible?  I mean, if the sperm and the egg don't get together...how
>do they get together?

Rape.

-- 
"A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:51:34 GMT

In <9208260011.46@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>In article <1992Aug21.002659.16657@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>>Nobody is trying to take away anybody's control of their own bodies.
>>We're simply making it plain that it is appropriate to apply that control
>>at the correct time, BEFORE there is a child whose own body is also involved.

>So the only sexual intercourse that you've ever had was for the specific
>purpose of concieving a child.  And once you had reached your objective
>you stopped.

A truly tasteless joke.  But it has possibilities: properly reworded,
it makes a perfect illustrative example of the term  "non sequitur".
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: The Wimp Factor Faces Death
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:13:42 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] Infanticide, euthanasia, and abortion are related issues because
] they involve the killing of human beings. 

ok, so do war, automobiles, air traffic, Weather Patterns 
near Coastal Areas......

did you have a point, or do you just like to form
list of things that have some connection....

ciao
drieux



-- 
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