HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: A snippet of evidence
Organization: Certified PHoney-free.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:36:05 GMT

On 21 Jan 93 19:10:31 GMT, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) said:

>In <0fJxwLC00Uh7016dcv@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>>The entire post of netnews.talk.abortion: 15-Jan-93 A snippet of
>>evidence by Doug Holtsinger@eceyv.nc 
>>>   "In 1800, the average American woman bore seven children.  
>>>    There was a slight decline in births during the first three 
>>>    decades but between 1840 and 1850 there was the largest drop
>>>    of the century.  This was the very time that abortion came 
>>>    to public notice and services were openly advertised."
>>>  
>>>    _Abortion practice in Britain and the United States_, 
>>>    Colin Francome, Allen and Unwin, 1986, pg. 31

>>We should think Mr. Holtsinger for posting this snippet of evidence for
>>how helpful abortion has been in reducing population growth.  We still
>>have a long way to go before we achieve the zero population growth much
>>less the negative population growth that the environment on this planet
>>so desperately needs.  Abortion will continue to play an important role
>>in this change, and hence in the betterment of this planet for all
>>people and animals.  Safe abortion is one of the best gifts that modern
>>medical technology has given us.

>>Michael Loomis

>Would you object to being added to the list of certified pro-aborts
>(now 3, with plenty of promising candidates) in this newsgroup?

Ooh.  Certified pro-abort, according to someone who himself is very nearly a
certifiable loony?  Boy, I bet *that* really stings...

--PLH, thankful he's nowhere near Columbia, though he *does* worry about
some of his kinfolk a couple hundred miles away in north Georgia...


--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:51:20 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <yhl384a@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:

>>> From the moment of conception the only thing that is added is food 
>>> and protection.  

>> Do me a favor.  Go tell your mother that all she ever gave you in the
>> womb was "food and protection".
>>
>> Warning - you may be somewhat surprised at her reaction.

>Would she have a different reaction if he had said 'bodily resources'
>instead of 'food and protection'?  Nah... probably not.   But we'd 
>probably see a different reaction from "rocker".

Of course.  Do you think _your_ 'bodily resources' are limited to
"food and protection"?

>Doug Holtsinger

                -rocker
                 well, maybe in dougie's case.....
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:14:14 GMT

In article <C12ArI.CJp@srgenprp.sr.hp.com> sam@sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:
>Kevin Darcy (kevin@rotag.mi.org) wrote:
>: Abolish traditional paternity child support, and in its place, make every man 
>: and woman who cause a conception, while not married to each other, pay an 
>: "Illegitimate-conception Tax". . . .
>: 
>: 	o  The friction between custodial and non-custodial parents should
>: 	   be eased somewhat, since the child(ren)'s standard of living will no 
>: 	   longer be dependent on the timely making of full payments by the non-
>: 	   custodial parent; hence less motivation, for instance, for a 
>: 	   custodial parent to use withholding of visitation as blackmail 
>
>I fail to understand how these two items relate.  The non-custodial parent
>of legitimate children would not be paying the tax.  

My statement does not apply to parents of legitimately-conceived children.

>The custodial parent
>of legitimate or illegitimate children could easily be earning too much
>money to be on welfare.  

My statement does not apply to cases where the custodial parent is capable
of supporting the child on their own.

The statement DOES apply to the large number of cases under the current law
where the children _were_ illegitimately-conceived, and the custodial parent
_does_ rely on the non-custodial parent's child support payments in order to
maintain a minimum standard of care for the child. The friction and pressure
between the custodial and non-custodial parents in THAT situation should be 
eased.

								- Kevin
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:39:20 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <C19r6E.EAA.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>Bense was clever enough to delete the attribution line so that he could
>better attack me.  Of course, it made it impossible for readers to follow
>these lines ("the above way" was missing from Bense's follow-up).

Are you going to gripe forever about inconsequential ramblings being
deleted from posts? Notice that I've yet again deleted these "sage"
words from this response, as the only thing I want to respond to is
above, and it requires no previous substance to make my point.

I don't really care about "attacking" you, Peter, as you are a mere
gnat in t.a. (Of course, even a gnat gets annoying, so that leaves you
room to aspire) "readers" as you call them, are probably smart enough
to go backwards through the rubble to pick up previous posts and catch
up on whatever was going on. (It seems you lack this knowledge, but
why should that surprise me, with the conspicuously convenient down
times your system suffers, not to mention the "I didn't see it response")

>Note to Gordon Storga: I apologize for a crack I made about you a couple
>of months ago, comparing you to Bense.  You now seem to be a much better
>man than he is.

He must be, his list of ex-girlfriends seems to way outnumber my own.

>Susan has not yet requested it.  In fact, I have not seen anyone request
>it yet.

Because we have seen it before, and concluded that you can have no better
than a smelly substance between non-functioning ears.

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:17:02 GMT

Paul Hudson Jr writes:
#Is it legally permissable for men to have abortions?  If not, men don't have
#"equal rights."

Who would ever write a law forbidding men to have abortions?




--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: time
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:36:54 GMT

}}}In article 1234567ABC89026JAN93 god@universal.truth 
(Galen Hekhuis) writes:

If you can allow abortion at, say, 14 days, what is to 
prevent you from drawing the line at 5 weeks, or 25 weeks, 
or even 35 weeks?  It is simply a matter of what 
rationalization sounds good to you.  Very few of us are at 
all qualified to tell when "viability," "personhood," or 
whatever happens, we have to rely on others, then we 
determine what sounds good to us.  Some folks may quibble 
about gestational age or lmp methods of dating, some may 
trot out experts that say that something significant happens 
at two days while others may claim that it happens at 2 
weeks -- it depends on your rationalization totally.  The 
only line that we can all see is birth, no matter where we 
live or the level of our technology.

There are some folks who say something happens at conception 
itself, and that length of gestation makes no difference 
whatsoever.  Those people must also be opposed to several 
types of fairly common birth control.  I'll address that in 
a forthcoming post.  I have numbered the posts backwards, 
from 100 to 7, not for any good reason, but to try to 
confuse some people.  I have also screwed up the attribution 
lines (I already have changed the quoting character, what 
more can I do?).

--
       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: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:06:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan21.021421.24486@Princeton.EDU>, datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
> In article <Jan.19.21.13.09.1993.7286@romulus.rutgers.edu>,
> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> >I changed the one key word in the passage above to more accurately
> >reflect the nature of this supposed "choice".  So how does it look in
> >all of its naked and inhuman brutality?
> 
> Pretty damn good. At least you won't have to spend your conservative
> money on health and human services, government bureaucracies, possible
> jail time, etc., etc., etc.
> 
> Better we should abort a z/e/f than to have an innocent child beaten,
> starved, maimed, or killed. But then, that's just my thinking.
> 
> Tep

So, when are we going to see the dramatic decline in physical
abuse and neglect of children, now that abortion is legal?

Now, I realize that a lot of things have changed in this country
since the 1950s.  Racial discrimination is housing, employment,
and public accomodations is now illegal.  There has been a dramatic
expansion of governmental assistance to the poor, and child protective
services is much more quick to intervene on behalf of abused
children.  Yet, physical abuse and neglect are MUCH more common
today than in the 1950s.

Maybe abortion doesn't do much for this problem?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
From: spinoza@next06wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Use of Force
Date: 24 Jan 93 07:25:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.010702.420@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux,  
just drieux) writes:
> 
> Michael Bray, One of OpResKrews Convicted
> Terrorists is advocating the "use of Force"
> in upcoming operations to National News
> Media Sources, reported moments ago.
> 
> Can anyone explain what this BuzzPhrase
> means in laymens terms?
> 
> Is this a "use of Force" construct as in the
> traditional meaning of firearms and bombings????
> 
Hmmmmm. in an interview whilst Michael was still a guest of the state, the  
Bowie Blade (a local rag, not to be confused with the various Blade papers  
associated with the gay communities of Washington and Bal'mer) his devoted  
wife said, amongst other things, that when he returned , they would  
continue to use "whatever means necessary" to prevent the "murder of  
innocent unborns". Presumably, Michael's term as a guest of the State of  
Maryland hasn't changed his mind, although the Cornerstone Assembly of God  
Church he attends in Bowie hasn't sponsored a book or record burning in a  
while, so perhaps it's done some good (although they did sponsor a  
"Children's Crusade" last summer, around August. Given the premise of the  
original, I'm highly suspicious of this, too. )
The upshot of the story is that Mikey probably hasn't changed much since  
his enforced vacation; the "use of force" you mention probably does  
include bobmings, but not firearms, as it is easier to claim that you  
didn't realize that the born doctor/nurse/receptionist/janitor was in the  
building at the time thanit is to claim that you didn't realize that a  
shotgun could do things like that at point-blank range........





shalom, ciao

jeff

Dallas won, the Redskins lost (bwaaaahahahahahahahahaha!), and I got a 3.4  
last semester. Things , as they say in astronomy, is lookin up"
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58181 talk.politics.misc:70050 talk.religion.misc:27681
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: When will We See the Changes in the Stats...
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:09:41 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <14063@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.231931.29900@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
># When we Start seeing folks having children
># because it is their Choice, and NOT out
># of Fear of their Churches....

>Do you know ANYONE in that category?  I don't.  I doubt that you do
>either.

My mother's friend who had had 7 children once went to the priest asking
what she could possibly do to avoid having more children, because she
was becoming quite frail.  She was told that not only was contraception
not an option (naturally) but that refusal of her husband's advances
was a sin (so the rhyth... I mean NFP was not an option either).  She got
pregnant again and nearly died as a result.  She left the Church thereafter,
and then her husband when she was sure her finances would be OK.


--Teddi
----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Planned Non-Parenthood? (to Rescorla)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:24:55 GMT

In article <nyikos.727652969@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1993Jan21.000136.29987@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>>In article <1993Jan20.223345.12792@tc.fluke.COM> emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
>Trivia: I believe this is the first time I've followed up to a Rescorla
>post.  Like Brian Kendig, he appears to be a victim of the "squeaky 
>wheel" syndrome ("The squeaky wheel gets the grease").  These two don't
>seem to squeak as loudly as the regulars I listed in the "Susan Garvin
>fan club".
Come now, Mr. Nyikos. Are the personal attacks really necessary.

>>>If the abortion industry weren't such a lucrative business and profits
>>>were'nt involved, perhaps this would be a trustworthy option.  However,
>>>when money is involved, even the best people can be tempted to overlook
>>>the good of the patient.
>Planned Parenthood did close to 200,000 abortions, and did less than 10,000
>cases of prenatal care per annum in the last three years.  That seems
>to suggest something.
I don't know what you are implying, Mr. Nyikos. 
I can think of many reasons why this would be so that do not include
improper practices or pressure on the part of PPFA.

>>Huh? Mr. Emery, PPFA, for instance, is a non-profit organization,
>>therefore (by definition) profit is not involved.
>When Faye Wattleton's salary was nearing the $200,000 mark, I decided
>to consider most of that as profit.  The head of Salvation Army, to cite
>another extreme, only got ~10% of that at the same time.
And how much does say the head of the United Way earn?
Heads of non-profit organizations routinely make extremely large
sums. So?

>BTW why restrict your attention to PP?
Because it's routinely cited by Pro-lifers as the biggest abortion
provider in the U.S. and I know it to be non-profit.

>> As far as
>>I know, abortions are not particularly lucrative. Ob/Gyn's get
>>much more money for a birth than for an abortion.
>Figures, please.
I don't have them, though I've seen them posted on talk.abortion
before, but can't substantiate the claim right now. Retracted.

>And be careful not to count 9 months of prenatal care in the costs.
Why not? Doctors get paid to do it.

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 21 Jan 93 00:47:49 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan19.163841.2006@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
> I was thinking more of the Pope's stupid stance of no birth control, not

Very stupid, indeed.

> even condoms; of the Pope's revolting stand, stated during the '92 U.S.
> presidential campaign, that it's "all right for Catholics to
> discriminate against homosexuals"; I consider the Pope's continual
> misogyny in not allowing women to have a voice in that church.  I STILL
> don't see how ANYone can worship at a church where the supposed "liason
> to God" and his cohorts (i.e., the Vatican) helped out the goddamned
> Nazis in WWII.  That's ANTI-SEMITISM practiced by your "holy" leader,
> Catholics; and of the most extreme variety.

Odd.  But most of what I've read indicates that the Vatican was
heavily involved in assisting German Resistance groups involved in
assassination plots against Hitler.  In any case, the Vatican took
a position against Hitler and the Nazis very shortly after Hitler's
rise to power.

> | Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Suzanne admits that she lied about her newsserver problems
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:21:13 GMT

In article <35738@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
#In article <C19J41.7qK.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
#writes about the latest emanations from Frau Forgach (##): 
# 
###I never go away, you jerk.   I just ignore _you_ so much, it drives you
###nuts.  And I'm glad.
##
##Does anyone else remember Suzanne claiming that she didn't
##see repeated requests for documentation?  She said each time
##that her newsserver crashed.  Now she says she never goes
##away.  Is she lying now, or just admitting that she perfected
##Nyikos Excuse #1 a long time ago?
#
#What I can never understand is why these fetus fanatics feel compelled
#to lie about their newsservers?  Why don't they just say: I'm going to
#ignore so-and-so?  In the case of our own Frau Forgach, I guess it's a
#fundamental part of her belief structure that a woman's essential
#nature [tm] is to eschew public choice situations.  Hence it is better
#to blame technology than admit publicly that a choice not to respond
#was made.  Do you think PHoney is a transsexual laboring under the
#same archaic behavioral code?

Hmm.  I hadn't thought of it this way.  I thought that PHoney
and Suzanne were just building up credentials as liars.
Maybe PHoney, with his "womb-envy" and all, is just trying to
act the way that he thinks a woman should in some twisted sense
of solidarity.  

I didn't read the net for a few days.  My newsserver was fine.  If
I don't reply to an article, it'll be because I don't want to.
I wonder if Suzanne and crew think I'll go straight to hell
for admitting this.

##Will PHoney follow suit?
#
#No.

Oh, well.  Maybe he'll try to provide an excuse for Suzanne's
slip, though.

Susan
From: hasselbring@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Abortions should be rare
Date: 25 Jan 93 11:52:52 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University

According to both the Washington Post and the Washington Times, 
Clinton said that America should be a place where abortions are legal 
and safe, but rare.  

I wonder what he meant by rare.  Does he realize that currently one of 
every three pregnancies are terminated by abortion?  Does he realize 
that over 4000 babies are aborted per day on the average in the US?

I know of no one who thinks that the repealing of the bans on 
22-Jan-93 will result in fewer abortions.  How can Clinton say that he 
thinks aboritons should be rare when his actions will make abortions 
more common?

Sue Hasselbring
hasselbring:guvax.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Left Wing Anti-Abortionists
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:43:36 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 <1993Jan21.201350.14499@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>
>In article <1993Jan20.034530.15925@news.columbia.edu>, rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>|>On what do you base your belief that it is always wrong to take another
>|>life, other than on religious beliefs?
>
>Maybe legal. Murder is illegal. I don't feel that taking a life is always
>wrong such as in self-defense but that it is something that should be
>avoided whenever necessary.The law does allow murder in self-defense

Try again.  As you pointed out, murder is illegal.  By definition, the
law does not allow murder.  What it does allow is, I believe, called
"justifiable homicide".
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Janus IV: Questions for Marcus, flame set to low
Date: 28 Jan 93 13:07:35 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

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes to
mark cochran:
-> You made some very damaging allegations about me 
-> and my kind [...]

have you apologized to adrienne for falsly linking
her with forgery?

do you understand the concept of hypocrisy?

i think you should be careful about linking others
with you. i doubt that many others would be
comfortable with that relationship.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal