HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 06:00:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.172908.14123@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.043628.3553@bmerh85.bnr.ca> 
>nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>
>> [.. story about an abortion to save the mother's life ..]
>
>> Apply this to today's situation.  Some people still oppose ANY abortion,
>> even in cases like the above.  Some people oppose abortion, except for
>> health reasons.  To those people, I ask:  who is qualified to decide
>> when the health reasons are sufficient to justify an abortion?  
>
>I believe that most physicians are qualified to determine whether
>an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother.  Why do
>you believe otherwise? 
>
DODie, he didn't say he believed otherwise.
And physicians do *not* determine that an abortion is necessary.
The patients condition is explained to them, and their options are
outlined. The risks and benefit of each option are detailed, and the
patient then makes their own choice as to treatment. I would like to
see you produce an example of a physician performing an abortion based
on his decision, and not the patients. A physician may suggest that
abortion is the safest option, but not determine what is best for the
patient. That decision is left to the patient.
In other words, get a clue DODie...

>> Are you really prepared to judge for yourself how much a woman 
>> should face?  
>
>No, because I'm not qualified to be a physician.
>
Wow, I think this is the first factually correct statement I've ever
seen from you...

>> I'm not ready to do that.  Thus, I am pro-choice.
>
>I don't follow your reasoning.  If you're not qualified 
>to determine whether an abortion is necessary to save 
>the mother's life, then how does it follow that nobody 
>is qualified to make that determination?  What about 
>physicians?  
>
>Who is qualified to determine whether a person was justified 
>in using lethal force in self-defense?  Do we always allow 
>the individual to make that determination?  
>
>
>>The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
>
>
>Doug Holtsinger


--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: In respect of Suzanne 
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:34:44 GMT

<1992Dec22.182521.8808@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga):
>> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> <about Doug Holtzinger>
>>>Only Rasmussen, Forgach and Chaney can equal his strange predilection
>>>for dishonesty and hostility.
>> 
>> Don't forget Nyikos.  I'd like to take a moment and offer a sincere
>> note of respect for Suzanne Forgach.  All of those mentioned above have
>> taken well deserved flame baths in the napalm of t.a.  Only Suzanne has
>> continued to post here.  Some might call it being a glutton for
>> punishment, some might call it naivity.  But whatever you want to call
>> it, at least Suzanne hasn't run away or threatened anyone and lost her
>> posting privileges because of it.  Although she has been known to take
>> forever to respond to a question.
>
>Well, with the volume of this newsgroup, can you blame me?  It takes a couple
>hours just to skim the headlines!   I'm sorry I can be slow responding, but
>I do have several competing demands on my time.

So do the rest of us.

>> I disagree with Suzanne on nearly everything, but I'll grant her this -
>> she's no coward.
>
>Hey thanks, Gordon!

Sure, no prob.

>(Speaking of cowards, you know, I really do have a hard time understanding
> this cultural widespread fear of babies!)

I have to admit that I don't like being around kids in general.  I refuse
to babysit for anyone unless I have full corporal authority.  So far no
one's taken me up on it. ;-)  Most children are smelly, noisy and messy.
Not unlike a lot of my friends in general, but at least I can tell them to
go home.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
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
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Lying DODIE manipulates newsgroups, insults, and lies more!
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 22:45:17 GMT

In article <34647@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>In article <1992Dec26.191257.5575@ncsu.edu>
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger), king of net liars,
>starts a new thread: `Was Mezias dropped on his head during his
>childhood?' and sets all follow-ups to misc.test.  How dishonest!
>So in response to having his lies exposed, he insults (note the
>header), he manipulates newsgroups, and then posts a new lie:
>
>>Allow me to explain something to you.  When people on talk.abortion
>>discuss ``legislation'', they are usually talking about legislation
>>to restrict abortion.  Most people understand that.  Obviously you
>>don't.  
>
>You are a liar, DODIE.  Most people on talk.abortion would include
>FOCA in the set of legislation relevant to abortion.  You are the
>first person I have seen make the claim that it is not.  Not satisfied
>with that, you add the lie that most people share your bizarre
>perception of how set theory applies to the intersection of
>legislation and abortion.  I also retract my observation that you had
>stopped manipulating newsgroups.  I now see it was only temporary.

Jesus H. Christ, people! Must _everything_ become a pissing match???

Look, Doug said he was "undecided" on "legislation". Later, when the FOCA
was brought up, he said he meant "restrictive legislation". I take that
as an amendment or retraction, don't you? If you want a FORMAL retraction, 
or amendment, why the hell don't you ask him for one? And Doug, why the hell 
don't you OFFER one or the other?

This thread is ridiculous. It shouldn't have ever existed. Sheesh. Can
we put it out of its misery now?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 2 Jan 93 17:47:43 CST

In article <C04w4u.CBs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

[massive, merciful deletia]
>Don't put words into my mouth.  Having sex and getting pregnant are not crimes.
>They are, however, actions that an adult must deal with like an adult.  
>
And what if the individual involved is _not_ an adult?
>
>You are wrong.  You are so completely wrong I know you have NO understanding
>of this subject.  Women's lives are EQUAL to preborn babies.  Only when the 
>mother will definitely die from the birth should the baby be killed.  This
>should be treated as a great tragedy, which it is.  The baby deserves a funeral,
>not a garbage can.

I think a woman's life is worth more than that of a
conceptus.  2/3 of all zygotes will never make it to term
because of natural factors.  What is it about the wishes
of a woman that makes them inferior to the whims of nature?
Do you think only women have equal worth with embryoes, or
do you ascribe this valuation to men as well?  Would you 
demand 100% certainty of maternal death before the woman's
life would be considered?  No other complications short of
death would qualify?  No permanent physical damage would
move you to compassion for the woman?

You seem to think that a woman incurs the responsibility
to suffer _any_ amount of physical damage, up to, and possibly
including _death_ (since we'd sacrifice all the women whose
deaths could not be predicted with certainty) as a result
of consensual sex.  What equivalent _physical_ responsibility
do you propose for a man who has sex?  If you say he has to
support the kid, how does that differ from the mother's duty
to support the kid?

muriel
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Was Dan Qyuale a Welfare Queen?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 22:21:33 GMT

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
] In article <C031zB.6nE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () farts:
] 
] }                                                If you are sitting at home,
] }watching your color TV and collecting my tax money, I have a right to expect
] }you to take all your free time and make something of yourself.  If you
] }refuse and instead insist on being a parasite, we cut off your money, take
] }your children from you, and let you fend for yourself.  
] 
] Darn.  And I didn't see you do a thing about Dan Quayle.


Now Hold On there Just One Moment, BleedingHeartwimpLiberalStooge.

Dandy Dan Provided a LOT of Employment to Folks. 
He was NOT just a social Parasite! Think of all the
folks who made money on things like the quayle quarterly!

Do you think that Gore will be able to provide employment
with something like the Gore Gazette?

Will Gore Need a Whole Army of Staffers to help him
spell potatoe? HUM!!!!!

Think about that one You Job Destorying Pinko!!!!

] }Edward Simmonds
] 
] a certified, raving loonie who can't quite make up his mind whether
] the root of all evil is money, welfare, or the International
] Leftist (formerly Communist) Conspiracy.  Have a nice life.

Oh Sure! Just Spread that 
EastCoastMediaMogalToadiesToTheInternationalKommunistKonspirakiiPropoganda.

Maybe after its been said often enough, folks
will think that there is NO RED MENACE lurking
under their Bed Waiting for them to let
down their Patriotic Guard!!!!!!

Thank God the HighHolyDittoHead is there to protect us!!!!!

ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Why Does Holtsinger Support Infanticide?
Date: 28 Dec 92 01:32:02 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

] In article <1992Dec24.180123.18424@informix.com> 
] proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
] 
] > This argument ("I am against abortion because had my parents chosen it,
] > I wouldn't be alive at all") would seem to apply equally well to
] > contraception. 
] 
] Using your reasoning, the argument would apply equally well
] to infanticide.  And to killing persons in a coma.  And to
] killing persons while they are asleep. 
] 


p1: holtsinger agree's that the 'stoopid argument' is stoopid,
and hence not a Reason to Oppose Abortion.

p2: Holtsinger Opposes Abortion

by Modus Tolens, we
conclude that Holtsinger does NOT oppose the 'stoopid argument'

Hence since he does NOT oppose the stoopid argument,
it follows that he supports infanticide as well....


ciao
drieux

ps: or did I miss your point Doodie?


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:30:50 GMT

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

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

>>Anyone can call themselves "Religious" and "Catholic" [note absence of 
>>words like "Roman" and "Greek Orthodox"] in these free-for-all times.

>Ya know, for a guy with a PhD, you don't know very much, do you?  The word
>'Catholic' means 'universal.'  All persons who are members of the one,
>universal church are catholic.  Lutherans are catholic.  So are Orthodox
>(both Greek & Russian), Episcopalians, etc.  You're being far to
>provincial, Dr.  The Roman church has no valid claim on sole catholicity.

As an ironic point, here is the definition of "catholic" from Funk & Wagnalls
Standard Desk Dictionary (sorry, I don't have Websters):

catholic   adj. 1. Broad-minded, as in belief or tastes; liberal; comprehensive;
large.  2. Universal in reach; general.

Notice that most of the aspects of 1 are about the opposite of what one might
think of applying to the Catholic (Roman especially) Church. (ok, half of them)
The Catholic Church (defined as The Roman Catholic Church) is generally narrow-
minded in beliefs and conservative, when compared to other Christian Churches.
(more restrictive than many/most Protestant Churches and "conservative" since
they pride themselves on being based on the "ancient, undivided Christian
church")

Ironic that "catholic" means some things that are contrary to "Catholic", eh?

8-)

>  -Steve

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Male Choice, How?
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 07:38:45 GMT

In article <1h61jqINN8ue@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>dvp@oasis.icl.co.uk (Dave Parry) writes:
>
>>As some have said earlier, the only sure way is to get the snip.   
>
>Dave, you forgot abstinence (from heterosexual, vaginal intercourse).

He's also been sadly misinformed if he thinks tubal ligation or
vasectomy are perfect contraception...

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 12:44:51 GMT

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes to
kebbie:
->I'm game... Lets hear you explain the difference between a fantasy and
->a hypothetical situation which has NO basis or cantact with the real
->world.

i can see you need to review some history, particularly
kebbie's explanation of the GROUP kevin darcy and the
INDIVIDUAL kevin darcy.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 03:47:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.065254.17977@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>
>
>Can you produce any evidence that anybody is performing post-26 week
>terminations and *not* attempting to salvage the fetus? So far, you've
>completly failed to do this. 

Okay, Mark, if a 28-week pregnant woman asked for a D&E abortion, and there 
were NO unusual medical conditions diagnosed, do you think, from the viewpoint
of medical ethics, she should be allowed to get her D&E? After that, please
answer the same question from your own personal moral viewpoint. If the two 
answers differ, will you finally admit that the pseudo-proposal to "handle
abortion as strictly a medical matter" is naive and unworkable, since medical
ethics alone can't address the vast tapestry of legal/historical/sociological/
economic factors that legislation can?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:36:05 GMT

In article <PATRICK.92Dec30194315@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> 
patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

}--PLH, glad he's a *long* way away from any school that would let clowns
}like Nyikos teach anything...

Wait a minute.  Dr. Phoney Giggles calls me a clown.  Don't call him
a clown.  We have a union.  Besides, I'm a hitman...


--
       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: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 02:15:28 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 <C05Bpu.GLE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>>In <C04w4u.CBs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>That's not a fetus.
>
>>Right - in most abortions, it's an embryo, not yet a fetus.
>
>Document this.

I just did - see my discussion with Steve Matheson.

>>>Don't put words into my mouth.  Having sex and getting pregnant are not crimes.
>>>They are, however, actions that an adult must deal with like an adult.
>
>>Abortion is one way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.
>
>Abortion is a way of avoiding being a mature adult

In your opinion, of course.  Ignoring an unwanted pregnancy until a baby
pops out is a way of avoiding being a mature adult; dealing responsibly
with the situation (whether that means aborting, or making plans for a
baby) is being a mature adult.  (In my opinion.)

>>>Don't call it a fetus because I doubt you know what a fetus really is.
>
>>Well, *I* think I do; what do *you* think a fetus is?
>
>A fetus is the prenatal stage of a species in which the unborn offspring
>begins to take on the basic physical characteristics of its post birth
>form.  In humans this occurs approximately 8 weeks after fertilization.
>
>Would you like anything more specific?

Yes - why shouldn't we call a fetus a fetus?

>I now know you don't know anything about prenatal development.

You conclude this because I prefer to use the more accurate terms?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 20:17:46 GMT

karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>As long as women insist on having all the reproductive rights, and sticking
>men with all the bills, you should expect that a goodly number of men will
>take the other side of this issue out of self-defense!

Self-defense?  Oh, I think it sounds rather more like a petulant little
boy stomping his foot and whining "If I can't have any candy then YOU
CAN'T EITHER!" as he throws his sister's lollipop into the dirt.

>Karl Denninger 

                            -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
Organization: Just down the street, somewhere...
	<34529@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> <1089@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
	<PATRICK.92Dec22203643@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
	<nyikos.725151713@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:09:30 GMT

In article <nyikos.725151713@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

   In <PATRICK.92Dec22203643@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

   >In article <1089@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

   >   I'm just curious - how many people believe Nyikos' claims about
   >   Dr. Tiller?  

   >I suspect it'll be nigh unto the same number who have a news server that
   >picks the oddest times to misbehave...:-)

   OK, Patrick, you're asking for it: I will keep you informed, via e-mail,
   of each and every time my netserver misbehaves, and when it ceases 
   misbehaving, until you e-mail me the one-word message, "Uncle" :-)

I'll have to assume you're joking -- if not, you'd get your mail back
uuencoded, and then you could have all the fun trying to find "Uncle" in
*that*.  (Hey, there's an idea for a net shenanigan.  Check out
alt.shenanigans in the near future -- you've given me an idea.  :-)

   PJN, glad he isn't as suspicious of other people as PLH.

--PLH, who wouldn't have been on the net this long if he hadn't been
slightly suspicious of certain people's motives

(Words to live by:  check the .sig, just for you, Petey Honey:----v



--
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

                         You can rn, but you can't hide.
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Date: 31 Dec 92 02:18:40 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec30.210045.9732@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.184040.16085@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>|> In article <1992Dec30.154352.1669@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>|> }In article <1992Dec30.025734.24975@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>**Begin Speculation**
>The last statistic I heard regarding number of abortions performed
>in the United States was somewhere around the mark of 1.5 million.
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the number is around there
>somewhere.  Thus, PA would be (generous) 1 million.  The stat I
>heard from Romania was that 10,000 women had died in 29 years?
>Let's say that 10,000 women will die from botched abortions each
>year in the U.S.  How many successfull, illegal abortions must
>there be to make enforcement of anti-abortion legislation a net
>good?  990,000.  I don't believe the number would be that high,
>since the number of abortion practitioners would decrease dramatically.
>**End Speculation**

>If TLS = Total Lives Saved = positive number, then enforcement of
>anti-abortion laws is successful.

In a society that cannot feed and clothe those who are already here,
where people sleep on the streets, suggesting that more be born to sleep
in the streets does not strike me as a valuable goal. To suggest that
increasing the population, in and of itself, is a valuable goal, one must
provide some evidence that more people is a desirable end. So WHAT makes
having more born a virtue?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion