HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Susan Garvin's double standard
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Keywords: Garvin, pro-killing 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 21:43:26 GMT

In article <1169@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>>> Of course, I didn't say that illegal means wrong - that's
>>> your own invention.  It's not even responsive to the fragment
>>> that you quoted.  

>>  "Threads evolve, Finkelstein.  People can read an article and
>>   reply to any piece of it or to the entire article.  They are
>>   not required to stick to the subject of your choosing.  If
>>   you don't want to discuss the new topic, no one will force
>>   you to do so."
>>
>>       <555@blue.cis.pitt.edu>

> Threads do evolve.  
>
> Of course, that's not what happened here.  You built a little strawman,
> and I didn't fall for it.  

You said, 'It's not even responsive to the fragment that you 
quoted'. 

Earlier you had said, '[People] are not required to stick to
the subject of your choosing.'

The point is that you have two standards--one for yourself,
and another for other people.  You're allowed to change the
subject, but other people are expected to stick to the subject.

I didn't pretend to claim that you meant 'Illegal means wrong'. 
I guess you wanted to change the subject so people wouldn't 
recognize your double standard.  Have fun wiggling out of it.

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 29 Dec 92 16:52:50 GMT
Organization: NRL

Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
In article <1992Dec28.115856.25977@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel 
Nelson) writes:

....
> In article <aidler.725417859@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan 
Idler) w
> What if 'fairly rapidly' is too slow, and the woman
> dies?  What if facing a 'state tribunal' is too intimidating?
> Woulf you like to go back to the days of illegal, unsterile,
> or self-induced abortion?
> 
> muriel

> 

Guess what Muriel? There were fewer abortion related deaths back then than 
now -
try a different line of rhetoric.  I know, the standard, "back alley, coat 
hanger" image is so juicy and hard to resist by pro-aborts.  Keeps those 
undecided folks shaking in their shoes. 

-Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject:  inconsistencies abound (was: Proposed definitions ...)
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:33:16 GMT

pn> = nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
pn> How is it that NO ControlFreak, ProForcer, AntiChoicer or RightToLifer 
pn> has ever called on for NonPhysicianWomen to be prosecuted for 
pn> ILLEGALLY performing SelfInducedAbortion?
pn>
pn> Could it be that they CARE about women?  Nah...:-)

I think you're going to have a hard time standing behind this one:

0) Are you claiming the pro-lifer's position is that "self-induced abortion 
   performed by a non-physician woman shouldn't be prosecuted? <y,n>
   If not, explain how *not* to interpret your statement as disingenuous.

1) Are you sure you don't want to retract your statement that 
   "NO" pro-lifer has ever called for the prosecution of non-physician
   self-abortions?  Will you claim pro-lifer's don't ever intend to
   make such prosecutions?  What if all abortions are declared illegal?
   Isn't there a pro-life (sic) group in California that wants the 
   death-sentence for women who have abortions?  

2) Next, how can one rationalize believing "abortion is murder" while 
   simultaneously being against prosecuting women for murder/abortion?

3) If the pro-life position is "self-induced abortion performed by a 
   non-physician woman shouldn't be prosecuted, please explain the 
   distinction between:
   o self-induced abortion performed by a non-physician/woman.
   o self-induced abortion performed by a     physician/woman.
   o              abortion performed by a non-physician/woman.
   o              abortion performed by a non-physician/  man.
   o              abortion performed by a     physician/woman.
   o              abortion performed by a     physician/  man.

4) Isn't it far safer to have qualified doctors perform abortions
   than have unqualified women perform self-induced abortions?
   Why would you encourage unsafe (or less safe) abortions?
   Do you want women to be put at greater risk?  
   Is this how you show you "care about women"?

5) Are the pill & RU486 not considered (potential) self-induced abortions 
   and hence OK by pro-lifers?
   Can we conclude pro-lifer's won't prosecute for using the Pill?
   Can we conclude pro-lifer's won't prosecute for using RU486?

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Apologies to Garvin, Keegan, clueless newbies, and Regard
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:34:15 GMT
Distribution: na
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 article <nyikos.725578290@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> Anyway, I hereby apologize to any clueless
> newbies who were confused by them, and to Adrienne for having to devote
> some time to setting the record straight for the benefit of these newbies.

After all this time, you apologize for any time Adrienne spent setting
the record straight???

WHAT ABOUT APOLOGIZING FOR FALSELY ACCUSING ADRIENNE OF FORGERY !?!?!?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52636 alt.abortion.inequity:6102
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: You want to talk about nature?
Date: 22 Dec 92 01:15:29 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec20.232538.20849@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1h0f1hINN232@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1gtcprINNbds@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In the "natural" state, when conception occurs the woman is pregnant.
>>No elective abortion -- there ain't no such thing in "nature".
>>If that's not "involuntary child support" then what is?

Ummm... What do you mean? Elaborately decorated abortion sticks were not
uncommon among so-called primitive people.
 
>Well, there's no "child" until birth, so if the woman, given a State of 
>Nature, doesn't wish to support the child after birth, she just walks away
>from it. *POOF*! No child support.

Yup. Infanticide is an old and constant tradition.

>>In "nature" the man can get off scott free.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:18:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.170931.5650@wdl.loral.com>, bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
|> skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
|> # Analogies are not equalities.  An apple is analogous to an orange in
|> # that both are round.  If we are considering what will happen to each
|> # when they are placed on an inclined plane, the analogy is proper.  If
|> # we are considering taste, then the analogy certainly fails.  It is
|> # important to note that pointing out that apples and oranges differ in
|> # color does not preclude reaching conclusions based on their analogous
|> # shapes.
|> 
|> Oh, forgive me -- *I* thought you were trying to make a point with
|> your analogy.  Now that it's clear that you are simply playing a game
|> of concentration, making analogies just for the sheer joy of it, I
|> suppose that clears a few things up.
|> 
|> Several posters, myself included, have explained why we think the
|> analogy isn't useful for aiding in the development of public policy.
|> Was there some other reason you trotted out this analogy?  Is it a
|> simple argument for moral persuasion?  Are you trying to practice the
|> art of dialectic?  Are you trying to bait flames like this one?  What?
|> 
|> If all you want is for someone here to give you a gold star for
|> thinking for yourself, I suppose there isn't much room for argument,
|> is there?  You drew an analogy.  What are we supposed to do with it?

Your supposed to realize that the analogy shows that there is precedent
in U.S. law for protection of the weak and underrepresented.  *If* the
fetus is a person, then it would not be unprecedented for the states to
pass a law protecting it or for a constitutional amendment to be passed
protecting it.  If personhood is in doubt, it is still not
unprecedented as many states prohibited slaves while the slaves'
personhood was still in doubt.  Whether or not it was correct for the
states to abolish slavery while the slaves' personhood was still in
doubt was premature or wrong, it was done and sets legal precedent.

However, I can see from your attitude that you have no desire for
constructive debate concerning this issue.  You may now continue to
flame at the mouth.

|> -- 
|> +---------------------------+  ``Man has not a single right which is
|> | J H Woodyatt              |  the product of anything but might.''
|> | bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |                           -- Mark Twain
|> +---------------------------+  

Mike Noonan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: We're working on it.
	<PATRICK.92Dec28125214@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
	<1992Dec28.140533.29655@hemlock.cray.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:57:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.140533.29655@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

   In article <PATRICK.92Dec28125214@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
 >In article <1992Dec28.020456.16807@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
  >
 >   In article <1103@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
 >   >In article <1992Dec23.011900.6792@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
 >   >>Patrick "get yer fat black ass down here" Humphrey writes:
 >   >
 >   >Using quotes around that phrase implies that Patrick actually
 >   >said that.  
 >
 >   Not when it's embedded in someone's name. Then it's obviously a nickname
 >   which the poster is attempting to attach to the other referenced poster.
 >   E.g. Susie "the floozy" Garvin.
 >
 >...or Kevin "ANYTHING to flame people who dare to disagree with my obviously
 >correct views" Darcy, right?  :-)
 >
 >--PLH, talk about easy...I'm almost ashamed.

  I thought that was Kevin "Unicorn Bait" Darcy.

Yow.  I clean forgot about that.  Thanks for reminding me -- "Unicorn Bait"
he is, henceforth...

--PLH, you can never have too many friends

 
--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 02:58:41 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 <72831@cup.portal.com> Patrick_Andrew_Barnes@cup.portal.com writes:
>I find it funny, and as a potential father in the future, sad that several
>pro choice people jumped on Edward Simond's back when he said that a woman
>got HERSELF pregnant,

Yes, I thought that was pretty funny too.

>yet turn around and vehemently state that it is the
>woman's natural right to have an abortion.

Of course it is.

>The prevailing
>attitude seems to be that the father DOES have responsibility for the
>pregnancy, DOES have responsibility for supporting the child, but DOESN'T
>have any say in the matter of whether that pregnancy is continued or not.

Yes, most people feel that just because a man slept with a woman doesn't
give him the right to control her body.  Sadly, some people disagree.

>Although I agree wholeheartedly with Edward Simmonds, I am above asking him
>to put his money where his mouth is.  I am surprised that none of the pro
>choice people noticed he claimed 'references available upon request' to
>back up his statements and despite having asked two other people for their
>sources, completely ignored someone ('s request for him to provide those
>references.

Why do you assume that his failure to provide references went unnoticed?
He did say:
   Statistics can be manufactured to support almost anything.

Presumably, it's taking him some time to manufacture them.  :-)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
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: The Pipe Wrench Clench
	<34529@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> <1089@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:36:43 GMT

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...:-)




--
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. 
  (This .sig is costing the net hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars -- but
                  what the hell.  It's good for the GNP.) 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Is Fire Bombing a Legitimate Form of Free Speach.
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 09:39:26 GMT

nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
] In article <1992Dec29.163531.6922@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
] >> = (Peter D. Hampe) writes:
] >
] >>firebombin is a form of free speech
] >>if and only if flag burning is truely a form of speech.
] 
] >Crapola, GI Joe.
] 
] OOpsy. Facetiousness alert. Meet drieux's liberal older brother.
] Now we've gone and done it...


So as to clarify, he thought Ronald Reagan was a Leftist....

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Proposed definitions for FAQ (Was: Reconciling OT/NT)
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:38:28 GMT

<nyikos.725128086@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
><1992Dec22.063007.50924@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>>In <1992Dec21.212858.28762@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec21.041610.42537@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>>>|> In <1992Dec21.012812.8797@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>>>|> >In article <1992Dec20.223810.17255@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>|> >|> <1992Dec18.213300.4979@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>>>|> >|> >
>>>|> >|> >First of all, I'd like to point out that most pro-abortionists or
>>>|> >|> >pro-choicers are Christian.  Secondly, there do exist atheists who
>>>|> >|> >are pro-life/anti-abortion.  So, just what exactly are you implying here?
>>>|> >|>
>>>|> >|> Sorry Mike, but the three admitted pro-abortioners on this net are hardly
>>>|> >|> Christian.  I'd like to know where you get your stats.
>
>Just out of curiosity: who are they?  I know Gordon Storga is one, who are
>the other two?

Me, Diana (Catwoman), and I believe Dan King, but I'm not sure about that
last one.

See, that was easy.


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: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: about chasing people off the net
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:40:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.044025.16556@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>> You're one ugly bastard, Keegan.  I never thought anyone
>>>> could stoop so low as to flame someone who's passed away.

>>> but someone has tried to use a
>>> person's death to unjustly flame someone else. do you
>>> know who that person is

>> Sure, Larry Margolis

> My flame was justified -
> the reason that Siren no longer posts is *not* because she was flamed off
> the newsgroup.  Petey was wrong (as usual), and a fool (as usual) for 
> believing Chaney.

That's irrelevant, you did mention that Siren is dead, and you flamed 
Mr. Nyikos for asking why she could not be contacted.  Keegan's accusation
that I had unjustly flamed him could also be applied to your flame
of Mr. Nyikos.

> "Siren" was an amalgam.  The post telling of the death of one member said
> that she was the one who had posted the most.  It was a reasonable
> (although incorrect) assumption that the one who passed away was the one
> who had posted the plea to not take her name in vain; 

Is the Siren who's still alive the same Siren who had posted
to talk.abortion during the past year?  If so, then I would
agree with your last statement.

> nevertheless, the
> fact remains that the main Siren poster is dead, and Petey was wrong as
> to why she's no longer posting.

But Mr. Nyikos didn't state that he believed Chaney's accusation that 
Siren had been flamed off the net, he only mentioned the accusation
in passing. 

Can someone re-post the article about Siren's death?
 

>Larry Margolis


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 03:32:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.193014.13808@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>
>...t.a is largely about spending undue effort to repeatedly
>point out obvious errors in reasoning.  Some honest criticism: I think 
>such faulty arguments actually hurt the pro-life cause because they serve
>to reinforce the association of faulty reasoning with pro-lifers.
>Ie. pro-lifer's are their own worst enemy.

Excellent point. I would add, though, that the same applies to pro-choicers.

(This is primarily in response to the occasional charges that I "must be 
pro-force" because I spend a fair amount of time arguing AGAINST various 
specious arguments for pro-choice and/or against pro-life, such as

	o  "abortion can be handled as strictly a medical issue"

	o  "legislation is distinguishable from morality" / "morality 
	   should not be legislated"

	o  "the collective has no (moral(?)) right to abrogate the legal 
	   rights of an individual"

	o  "a fetus has no value whatsoever"

	o  "a fetus is just a parasite"

	o  "a fetus is just a part of the woman's body"

	o  "a fetus is no different than a cancer"

	o  "pro-life is inherently a religious view"

	o  "pro-life is inherently misogynistic"

	o  "restrictive abortion laws violate Equal Protection"

	o  "deadly self-defense is generally permissible against rape"

	o  "abortion is not 'murder' in any sense, because it's currently 
	   legal"

This is just a sampling of things that make pro-choice look foolish, and which
I have therefore attacked. Just call me Mr. Pro-Choice Quality Control :-)

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Darcy and viability as important dividing line.
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 22:59:12 GMT

In article <34645@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>In article <1992Dec26.221930.12985@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
>(Kevin Darcy) writes in response to my question regarding header
>topic: 
>
>>>Please explain the relevance of this dividing line to abortion.
>>
>>It marks the line between where the death of the fetus is strictly NECESSARY 
>>versus where it is usually OPTIONAL, in order to preserve the BA rights of 
>>the pregnant woman. 
>
>I thought the relationship of the /z/e/f/ with the bodily autonomy of
>the mother had to do with the location of the /z/e/f/ and not its
>viability.  Please point out where I went wrong.

You are confusing the JUSTIFICATION of a right, with the permissible manner
of its ASSERTION. An assertion of BA rights, as you correctly point out, is 
justified by the location of the z/e/f; however, the right that may be 
asserted is primarily one of REMOVAL (i.e. changing the "location" of that 
z/e/f), not necessarily destruction. That's where you went wrong.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion