HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Pro-Choice Challenge  (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:12:06 GMT

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>> = (Michael Loomis) writes:

>>> I am gay.  I strongly resent Mr. Nyikos's comparison between gay-bashing
>>> and abortion or infanticide. 
[...]
>>> Third trimester abortion and infanticide involve the killing of beings
>>> not yet in the social order

>> I wonder...how many pro-choicers share Mr. Loomis's view of infanticide?
>> How many agree that newborn babies are not yet appropriate objects for
>> ethics?

>I don't think you're going to get any answers from the pro-choicers  
>on this newsgroup.  Michael Loomis has occasionally expressed the
>view that infanticide is not wrong, and I've never seen a pro-choicer
>disagree with that view. 

Pro-choicers, attennnnnnnn-SHUN!

Sound off:  Which pro-choicers believe that "newborn babies are not
yet appropriate objects for ethics"?  I am diametrically opposed to
that statement.

   Answer loud and clear...
   Answer fast.
   Make Doogie cry and look like an ass.  Again.

>I think some pro-choicers on the net don't want to acknowledge 
>the existence of extremists on their side, because if they did, 
>they couldn't bash the extremists on the pro-life side without 
>looking a little hypocritical. 

Hey, *I'm* an extremist.  I'll bet others would "acknowledge" it.

Because remember this, you asexual liar:  You will take away a woman's
right to choose over my dead body, or I'll keep that right over yours.

There's no middle ground in my book.  Though it sounds overly dramatic,
the fight over abortion is but the tip of the iceberg: does America go
FASCIST, as it's headed, or do we restore our land of the free?  Do you
want religious fanatics in our bedrooms, schools and workplaces, or do we
restore tolerance, compassion and freedom?  Better make up your minds
soon.  That was a virtual parade of far-right extremists you just saw
at the Republican convention.  'Course, if you're white, well-off,
loudly Christian, and bigotted as hell, you *may* be under the illusion
that you're OK.  Heh heh.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Why do they call themselves "pro-life"?
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:32:41 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article <adams.714668788@spssig>, by adams@spss.com (Steve Adams):
>> 
>> There are other options, of which the one likely to get the most votes is
>> the Libertarian Party (Marou/Lord).  They are unlikely to get more than a %
>> or 2, and no electoral votes.
>> 
>> Other than that, there are candidates listed from the New Alliance Party
>> (Lenora Fullani), the Socialists, the Communists, etc, etc.
>> 
>> None of these so called "3rd Parties" has any real chance at this point.
>> That last Non Republican/Democrat to get a decent number of votes was John
>> Anderson in 1980 (Reagan vs. Carter).
>> 
>> It's too bad.  A true 3rd party could only help.

>Ross Perot doesn't think so.

That's because he didn't want to campaign like he needed to, take positions
and spend $100 million.

And, he has never been involved in politics (except as a donor) before...

 -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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:28:57 GMT

> = (John Stevens) writes:
>> = (David Knapp) writes:
>>> = (John Stevens) writes:

>>>And this is a good reason for acting irresponsibily?  Because we aren't
>>>perfect, we should even try?

>>No, try all you want. Don't *preach* it to me, though. In fact, don't *preach*
>>it to anybody.

>Why not?  More personal beliefs, perhaps?

Stevens, why are you purposefully acting like a horse's ass?

I really don't understand.  Did that incident with that woman twist you
beyond social intercourse?  Or maybe any other kind?

Specifically:  Why do you term a "belief system" the desire of someone
else _not_ to be preached your pitiful medieval superstitions?  At least
_some_ of you control freaks must recognize this compensation for your own
inadequacy that you project everywhere like vomit.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:39:23 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

> Holtsinger

>No state may enact legislation which requires a physician 
>to remove a viable fetus alive, because it would be unconstitutional 
>under Roe.  

As written, this statement is bullshit.

Under Roe, ALL ABORTIONS AFTER 24 WEEKS OF GESTATION MAY BE PROHIBITED BY
EACH STATE, WITH THE SINGLE EXCEPTION OF THOSE PERFORMED TO SAVE THE LIFE
OF THE MOTHER.

Those done to save the life of the mother generally are not abortions per
se as there is a secondary goal of saving the fetus' life as well.

Therefore, EVERY state may enact legislation requiring a physician to
attempt to preserve the life of a fetus that is 24 weeks' gestation or older.

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

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33512 rec.music.misc:22247
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,rec.music.misc
Subject: Re: "Drain You" by Nirvana
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:10:26 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>In article <1992Aug23.235433.2161@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

>When it comes to Nirvana lyrics, we are all clueless.  Hopefully
>I'll have more information tomorrow after using good headphones.

Hey, I had almost all the lyrics to "Smells like Teen Spirit" before
Tori Amos came out with the understandable version. :) And don't use
headphones, they can cause auditory delusions when used in conjunction
with Nirvana. :)

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Abstinence is the only answer
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 02:41:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.161007.1377@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Eric Marsh) writes:
>># = Doug Holtsinger:
>
>># Your post was a shameful, transparent attempt to slander Mr. Guerrero.
>
>>Holtsinger looks more like Rasmussen every day. Is there any support out
>>there for a Holtsinger boycott?
>
>I'm convinced DJR is part of the Holtsinger phenomenom.
>
>A boycott would be fine with me.  The last one sure drove DJR into a rage, so
>count me in :)!

Oh, get lost. A boycott against YOU, Steve Novak, would be more
likely.

A boycott against James Keegan and Mark Ira Kaufman, would be highly
more likely, than against Doug Holtsinger. 

Lessee, now, you boycott-hungry folks first wanted to boycott me, then
David Rasmussen, and now Doug Holtsinger. 

It is obvious that pro-aborts here cannot handle anything but their
narrow vision of life in general, and when people wander from that
path and screw up the various pro-choice AI programs running on USENET
(like Dan King, Mark Kaufman and James Keegan), they scream for a
boycott.

Perhaps it is because all the OTHER AI programs, like Novak and co.,
are also experiencing gross processing errors, and need to shelter
their sensitive, poorly-programmed, sub-Beta Version-code, from
FlavorsMotherNatureNeverIntended. (Shades of that OTHER AI program
called Drieux?)  


=============================================================================
>##       "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              |
=============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Siamese Twins: How Many People?
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:33:52 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Aug27.145127.631@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de () writes:
>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>: Lets take a case where a single torso is shared by two heads, each of
>: these heads having its own personality. Is this a single person, or is
>: it two people? If this is a single person, then do we have the right to
>: arbitrarly lop off one of those heads, providing that it does not
>: kill the rest of the being?

>What has this got to do with abortion?

If abortion is about the killing of a person, the case of siamese
twins should help us to identify what is and is not a person.

>Frank O'Dwyer

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 00:34:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.225649.16236@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
[text deleted]

#I thought you didn't want to see him post an entire article
#to the net on the topic of infanticide.  You probably asked 
#him for a short opinion of his views on infanticide so that 
#you could ridicule him, and discourage him from posting 
#a detailed argument which supported infanticide. 

Been taking speculation lessons from Nyikos, have you?

You have absolutely no basis for your speculation, of course.
Why should that stop you, though?  With your newly learned
forging skills, maybe you can just fake an article from
me that says what you want me to say.

I'd be glad to see Loomis elaborate on his beliefs.  

Susan
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: 1-900-fone-sex  (was: myths about PP or something)
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:38:14 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

Suxie reveals her utter lack of imagination:

>My gosh.  I've never heard such a ridiculous term in all my life as
>"non-contact sex".  What a hoot!  Tain't sex if it's "non-contact", 
>now is it.

No wonder you have to play with yourself (I mean your mucus) i the bathroom.

-- 
"Republicans understand the importance of the bondage between parent and
child." - Dan Quayle at a GOP rally in Sept. '88 in Springfield, Illinois

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Where!?  I very much doubt it.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:08:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.181046.29135@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug20.142025.4064@spdc.ti.com>  serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>> In article <usglkrx.714260356@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K.
>They'll get an abortion.  That is acting responsibly.  What's your problem?
>
>(If you want to claim that aborting an unwanted pregnancy is irresponsible,
>you'll have to prove it, not merely assert it.)

You miss the point.  It doesn't need (and cannot be) proved.  It is a
belief.  Just as what you say is a statment of belief.  Turn it around,
don't just say that getting an abortion is acting responsibly, PROVE it.

But you can't.  Because your statment is also a statment of belief.  You may
be able to provide reasons for why you believe, but this is not proof.

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

The problem, Mr. Margolis, is not his alone, it is shared.  Both sides
need to realize that they are stating beliefs, not facts.

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:46:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.163251.2258@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.195727.13802@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug31.150632.12762@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>>And this is a good reason for acting irresponsibily?  Because we aren't
>>>perfect, we should even try?
>>
>>No, try all you want. Don't *preach* it to me, though. In fact, don't *preach*
>>it to anybody.
>
>Why not?  More personal beliefs, perhaps?


No, technically, you should be allow to preach  all you want. That
is guaranteed in the Constitution. But if you harrass me on the street with
preaching, I'll pop you in the kisser.  I've really had quite enough of the
sanctimonious scum hanging around bitching at people about how immoral
they are. 


The issue wasn't preaching anyway. I erred in my explanation of that.  What
I should have said is "don't force your system of personal responsibility
on the rest of us."  You can preach all you want but when you try to make
laws governing my life according to your system of 'responsibility', 
expect a fight.



-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 27 Aug 1992 14:36:31 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Aug27.202711.19210@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>In <17j6c0INNkav@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com writes:
>
>> In article <1992Aug27.141622.22014@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>> >In <17gnj8INN3v9@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com writes:
>  One question for you:  Do you RESPECT Nyikos, Holtzinger, and some others
>you feel have made judgements based upon certain data, data THEY have found 
>sufficient for themselves?  
>  Think about it.  Carefully.  Based on the criteria you yourself presented.
>And remember, I asked you first.  IF you hold to your criteria, I doubt you
>will find the answer appealing.

Hm.  Are Nyikos, Holtzinger, and others making private decisions based on
their judgements of certain data?

Or are they proposing POLICY decisions that would impact all kinds of other
folks?

I've said it before, and Jim, I know you've heard it before.  I don't care
a bit about what Nyikos, Holtzinger and others decide to do in their private
affairs, but I care very *much* what they may propose as legislation.

I further respect Nyikos' and Holtzinger's RIGHT to make private decisions
based upon any criteria they consider to be important.  (Now, if I were
to find out about some of their whackier decisions, I might think they were
a little nutty, but I'm sure they'd feel that way about me, too.  We all
have opinions on other folks thought processes.)  But I respect their
right to make decisions, and their privacy regarding those decisions.

>  Well, you could have said, "Get lost, this is not your argument."

It's a public net.  You are perfectly free to comment upon anything you 
see here, Jim.  However, as I've pointed out, you are not necessarily going
to find yourself successful in redefining other's subjects for them.   I
don't have a problem with you saying:    
          Ah, you think "X" (always better to quote than paraphrase)
          Well, I think Y
But I don't particularly believe you can instead say:
          Ah, you think "X"
          Well, I'm talking about Y so you have to talk about that.
Unless you originated the discussion topic. 

>  Oh my.  An etiquette lecture.  Listen, deary, unless you've missed something,
>you are not talking to Roy.  You are talking to me, Jim.

Think about this hard, too, Jim.  I'm talking to the net.  Even on the little
lecture above, I'm talking to the whole of the net, whoever cares to read.
I'm *not* talking to just you, Jim.  That's the difference between talk.
abortion and e-mail.  Got it?

Adrienne Regard

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 15:27:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.165321.25266@ncsu.edu>
dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.140639.6280@bmw.mayo.edu> 
>bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:

>> A fetus has never been a legal person.

>Before Roe v. Wade was handed down, there was never any constitutional
>right to kill a member of the human species.  

No.  Griswold vs. Connecticut made birth control a constitutional
right for married couples.  Eggs and sperm are members of the human
species.  (No?  What other species, then?)

Personally, I don't think the Constitution guarantees a right to birth
control, to education, to have enough food to not starve, to abortion,
to burn the flag, to burn leaves in your backyard, or to much of
anything beyond which it specifically guarantees.  This doesn't mean I
don't think people have a *moral* right to many of the above,
especially in a society as rich as ours.  It *does* mean that I take
the Constitution fairly literally.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Date: 31 Aug 1992 08:21:02 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Aug31.122431.15398@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de writes:
>I don't accept that an abortion is ever over and done with 
>as you suggest.

Why not?

>I'm saying that the knowledge of the child *you* might have 
>raised, or might have had adopted, for that matter,  is with 
>you for the rest of your life.   

So is the knowledge of the children you might have raised that you 
decided never to conceive.

>In fact, all I'm saying is: abortion, for women who choose it,
>is a Big Deal.  They will be affected by it for no little time.  
>I find *your* claim about "most people" reveals very little 
>understanding of human nature.

Upon what grounds do you make this claim?

There have been studies performed on these issues, you know.  Do you know
what the bulk of these studies have found?  Upon what knowledge base do
you decide that women will be 'affected by it for no little time' (and,
by affected, I'm thinking negatively affected, given the thrust of your
previous writings on this topic.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: "Abortion" on a not-pregnant woman
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  1 Sep 92 22:17:38 GMT

In <92243.112736ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715045629@milo.math.scarolina.edu> Peter Nyikos says:       u
>>
>>The following item is taken from _The Forerunner_, May 1989.  It appears
>>with a picture of the woman giving the testimony, which took place
>>at the "Meet the Abortion Providers" conference in February, 1989 at
>>Chicago's O'Hare Marriott, sponsored by the Pro-Life Action League.

>>This testimony was given by Nita Whitten, of Dallas, Texas, a former
>>clinic assistant.  I am repeating it verbatim as given in _The Forerunner_
>>despite the fact that some pro-choicers will find some of it
>>(for example, "I decided to give my life to the Lord") highly offensive.

>I doubt anyone would find it "offensive" for the
>reasons you might think. 

Kathi Mills did.  Read her post.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34140 alt.abortion.inequity:3349
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:15:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>Currently true.  But IMO, that's what this discussion is all about, changing
>that.  Just because a fetus is not recognized as a person now, does not
>mean that law (or amendments to the constitution) cannot be passed to
>change it's status.

I don't beleive for an instant that you really want to see legal personhood
begin at conception.  To do so would require that murder charges be filed
against any women who gets an abortion.  Engaging in any hazardous activity
while pregnant would be child endangerment.

Is THIS the sort of world you want to live in?

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion