HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:42:54 GMT

In article <nyikos.715481699@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <1992Sep2.071341.3020@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
#
##I agree with rocker.  This case has nothing to do with Nyikos'
##own misogyny.
#
##As an aside, this Charles Wysong that Nyikos keeps thanking
##is, if I'm not mistaken, head of a charming little group
##called the American Rights Coalition.  This group passes
##out little cards outside clinics that list "abortion
##complications" and ask that women call if they have any
##of the listed symptoms. 
#
#It would be nice if pro-choicers did the same, and directed the
#women to appropriate medical help and support groups.  But it
#seems that "pro-choice" only applies to before the fact, and not
#after the fact.  

This is untrue.  One of the guidelines to which a clinic
must adhere if it is a member of the National Abortion
Federation is that it must provide 24 hour access to 
follow-up medical care, and that it must provide free
counseling after the abortion.

##The group also
##produces a flier called "The Abortion Injury Report," which
##supposedly reports on such complications,
#
#"Supposedly"?  I'll post some more from it, and let readers judge 
#for themselves.

Do that.  I'll provide the facts after you do.

##When the ARC mailed letters to clinic employees asking that
##they report any health code violations to the ARC (oddly
##enough, they did not suggest contacting any legitimate
##authorities),
#
#Isolated incidents don't concern these authorities, I'm sorry
#to say.  I'll have lots to say about this in the future.
#You have to collect a mountain of evidence to get them to act.

Will you also be providing any proof for this allegation?
The county health department here, at least, disagree with
you.

[I'm not interested enough to go back and see what all
Nyikos' deleted.  I know he deleted the part about the
ARC sending a mailing to clinic employees.]
## a friend of mine called them.  They
##asked her if she had any problems following her abortion.
##(They didn't ask why she was calling.  She said, "Hello,
##my name is Anne."  They responded by asking about her
##abortion.) 
#
#Gee, I'll have to have my wife give the number a call.  They never
#ask me whether my girlfriend or wife had an abortion.

Do that.  I've called myself since posting this.  They asked
me if I had had an abortion after I gave my name.

## She told them that she had an abortion,
#
#Lucky guess? or did she use the word abortion, and the context was
#misunderstood?

No.  They made an assumption.  She said, as I had previously stated,
"My name is Anne."  

I'm not surprised that you also deleted the part about the ARC
being willing to attribute a speech impediment in a child to
his mother's earlier abortion.  It is embarassing for your
group, isn't it?

Susan
From: idqm400@indyvax.iupui.edu
Subject: Companies stands on abortion rights?  Who are theyyREAD/NEW/FOLLOWUP?
Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:28:56 GMT
X-Posted-From: indyvax.iupui.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Can anyone supply a list of companies which support abortion 
rights?  Companies which are "pro-life"?

Thank you

Dale  IDQM400@INDYCMS.iupui.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:52:08 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug31.022502.24466@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> I was questioning exactly how much
> discretion and latitude Susie had in the decision to report, and what exactly
> her motives were. We talk a lot about choice around here. I have a strong
> suspicion that Susie had a fairly significant choice in this matter, and
> exercised her choice.
> Policy forms the pretext, but agenda motivates the action.

In article <1992Aug31.013646.23946@rotag.mi.org>,
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wrote something very much like:
> Now, are you going to PROVE that [you] knew [Susan's motives],
> or are you going to admit to the obvious fact that you can't
> prove a damn thing about [her] thoughts? If the former, start presenting your
> proof. If the latter, admit that your allegations are unproven and in fact
> that they are unprovable. Put up or shut up, [Kevin]. Your impotent whining
> is becoming counter-productive.

(Substitutions are in brackets.)

> Call me a cynic if you wish.

I think "a hypocrite" might be more appropriate.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:55:08 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills):

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

>ANYONE voting for pro-choicers is like a human being voting for cannibals.

We eat other people??? How nauseating! :) (depending on what other people:)
(for Franklin, this is what 5 vowels look like, should you actually 
still be looking:)

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Reasons for third-tri abortions
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:05:07 GMT


Nyikos is emulating Holtsinger, I see.  

Nyikos' statement that Dr. George Tiller performs third trimester
abortions for reasons other than to preserve the health or life
of the pregnant woman is technically true, but by failing to
elaborate on these reasons, Nyikos shows his true colors.  Dr.
Tiller does late term abortions on healthy women who are carrying
fetuses that are severely deformed.

Dr. Tiller turns some women away because he does not approve of
their reasons.  Nyikos failed to note this, perhaps because
neither the ARC nor the NRLC would print the complete facts
of any case.  (I'd prefer to think that Nyikos is merely
ignorant rather than a willful liar like Holtsinger until
I see more from him.)

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: GC.NBA@forsythe.stanford.edu (NARLEN)
Subject: Cut to the Quick
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 19:30:22 GMT

Post people:

...for those of you who support abortion: You are all _wrong_!

One-time abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson (?) did over 55,000
abortions, before he realized he was _wrong_; so it is very obvious
that all you pro-choice (murder) individuals will not heed the Truth
through this thread; ...too bad.

There is much work to be done to stop abortion but you all are the
wasting your lives defending a _lie_. Please get a life, and help
save some, let's all stand together against this open season on
babies.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 22:17:32 GMT

<1992Aug25.182118.13682@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
><1992Aug23.235355.8281@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>><1992Aug20.141415.3923@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) :
>>Either way, it's not YOUR decision to make, Mikey, it's the woman's.
>
>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.
>
>The law considers me legally responsible for the child AT CONCEPTION, so
>I ought to have the right to help make the decision.

Let's get that law changed then.  That way you won't be responsible at
all.

>>SHE's the one who's going to have to live with herself, not you.
>
>Wrong.  I WILL have to live with myself.  And that may be damn difficult,
>especially as the law does not currently allow me any recourse.

Go have another kid.  Or adopt.  Any way you cut it, biology doesn't allow
you any recourse.

>>YOU can't make that decision for her.
>
>Of course not.  But she should not be able to make the decision for me,
>either.

You would force a woman to be the incubator of your progeny?  As near as I
can tell we outlawed slavery in this country.


Gordon
-- 
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: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: THE ABORTION ON DEMAND MYTH.
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:34:37 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

>>    One of the favorite bellowings of the anti-abortion zealots is
>> the "abortion on demand" sound bite.  This catch phrase, although
>> trumpeted often, has much implication, and no substance.

> Abortion on demand = no form of abortion illegal + all abortions free.
> = FOCA.

This statement is not correct.

The Freedom of Choice Act follows the tenets of Roe vs. Wade, which has been
shown over and over _not_ to specify "abortion on demand."  From the text
of RvW:


"On the basis of elements such as these, appellants and some *amici* 
argue that a woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to 
terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for 
whatever reasons she alone chooses.  With this we do not agree."
Appellants' arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in 
regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to 
support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, is 
unpersuasive.  The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also 
acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right 
is appropriate.  As noted above, a state may properly assert important 
interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and 
in protecting potential life.  At some point in pregnancy, these 
respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain 
regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision.  The 
privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute.  In 
fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some *amici* that 
one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a 
close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the 
Court's decisions.  The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited 
right of this kind in the past. [citations omitted]"

Note the key pair of sentences:

"At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently
compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion
decision.  The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute.


Contrary to what you and DOD would have us believe, we do not have abortion
on demand in this country, RvW does not specify abortion on demand, FOCA
does not allow abortion on demand, and the Democratic party platform does not
support abortion on demand.

> POOF! You're gone.

It's about time you worked that disappearing act on yourself.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:52:02 GMT

In article <afxewrq@Unify.Com> sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
>> 
>Failure to implant and those 1/3 failures after conception you are talking about are
>most often from no fault of the woman, in which case she can not be blamed.
>

To use your words "most often", but if a fetus is a legal person, with
all the rights of an adult male (I say male because it has more rights than
the adult female in which it inhabits), then _all_ miscarriages would have
to be investigated just on the odd chance that some foul play has occured.
That's how it is when an adult male is found dead...or missing.  Would
you like the pregnancy police intruding into your life at a time when
you most need privacy?  That's what would happen in your world to you and
your wife.  No one would be spared.

>Absolutely - anything that clearly endangers the life of the baby.  As another
>opinion, I think sauna's are debatable (in Japan they are encouraged to go to
>saunas during pregnancy and are discouraged from going into cold water), but
>smoking and excessive drinking are endangerment.
>> 

Does smoking endanger the life of the baby?  Has there ever been a case where
a fetus has died as a result of maternal smoking?  Sure, there is evidence
of some damage to the fetus, but death?  As you said..."anything that clearly
endangers the life of the baby".  I don't think that smoking would qualify.

And how much drinking is "excessive"?  Doctors don't know how much is too
much.  And, how in the hell could you stop a woman from drinking while pregnant?
If she's not overtly showing then I suppose you would require every, and I
mean every, adult female to pee in a pregnancy test before serving her a 
beer?  Jesus H Christ, just how far do you want your pregnancy police to
go?  Does a woman have ANY rights in your world?

You "think" saunas are debatable?  You mean you're writing law and you
don't know?  Boy, you are weird.

And scary.  Too scary.

Jennifer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:16:57 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Vienna, Va.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

In article <1992Aug26.093844.20481@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> cswicego@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Cynthia Swicegood) writes:
>
>
>Abortions are wrong!  There's no difference between a fetus, a baby, and
>an adult, these are just different steps in human development.  People
>say that a fetus isn't anything because it can't survive outside the
>womb, well a baby already born can't survive outside the womb either
>unless someone takes care of him/her and feeds him/her.  You're talking
>about human life, no matter what stage it's at and it's wrong to kill.
>Plain and simple.

OK...

(Rule number 1: No religious theology, morality. Cold scientific
facts to support your argument only, please).

So why is it wrong?

Why does a human life have more precedence than that of a bovine?

Since you seem so concerned with the rhythyms of nature,
is it wrong to interfere with nature's course when a human
life hangs in the balance (ie: saving a heart attack victim)?

I just want to hear ONE scientific reason why we should con-
tinue to overpopulate the earth.

-- Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------
This is my opinion. Get your own. My employer has its own.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34310 misc.legal:16789
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion:  My Views
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:10:28 GMT

In article <la9sq7INNp3p@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> 
emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>Eric_Gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric gorr) writes:

>>> Legislated morality doesn't work.  

>> Then are you against legislating in the areas of homicide, 
>> rape, and theft?

> These are not necessairly moral issues.

If homicide, rape, and theft laws are not based upon morality,
then what are they based upon? 



Doug Holtsinger

      "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>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:17:41 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

HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
->   I should observe that I find Adreinne's general
-> assumption that ONLY a pregnant woman, in general,
-> has any idea what is going on just a little bit
-> patronizing.

i don't know why you "should observe" that since it's
not what she said. it would seem to me that you
shouldn't observe something she didn't say and
attribute the saying of that unsaid thing to her.

as for finding something patronizing, i wouldn't be at
all surprised if some t.a. readers who have experienced
pregnancy might not find your attitudes towards
pregnancy, which you have not experienced, patronizing.

->   They (the women) may well have better knowledge.  

now you've got it. that is what adrienne suggested.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:05:10 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

kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:

-> >Is there a crisis of third trimester abortions
-> >where viable fetuses are killed for reasons other
-> >than medical necessity?
-> >
-> >In short, is there a need for such a law?
-> 
-> As a concession, in exchange for a permanent,
-> irrevocable protection of the Right to Choose in the
-> first 2 trimesters? Maybe there is a need...

you're quite casual about trading away women's
rights, aren't you?




-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: 4-6-8-10, ARE FFL's leaders men?
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 00:58:27 GMT

In article <2SEP199209480662@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov>
ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:

>(1) Most Usenet subscribers are computer scientists and/or engineers.
>    For better or for worse, these are men.  For the time being.
>(2) The overwhelming majority of pro-choice voices here are also men.
>    The reason for this is also (1).

#1 - granted.

#2 - denied.
The majority of the pro-choicers on talk.abortion may or may not be
men -- feels like the majority of the pro-choicers are women to me,
but I don't pay all that much attention.  The *overwhelming*
majority of the pro-choice voices aren't male (or female, the
division is too close).

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: List of unsubstantiated accusations by Susan Garvin
Date: 28 Aug 92 00:02:39 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

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> List of unsubstantiated accusations by Susan Garvin against me:
-> 
-> a) Unsubstantiated accusation that I had been making
-> up sources for an article that Susan Garvin had
-> never seen.

	"Truth by blatant assertion."
	<1992Aug26.233735.27613@midway.uchicago.edu>

	"Truth by Blatant Assertion."
	<1992Aug27.015630.2175@midway.uchicago.edu>

-> b) Unsubstantiated accusation that I had doctored a
-> quote from a Planned Parenthood official from an
-> article that had been posted to the net.

	"Truth by blatant assertion."
	<1992Aug26.233735.27613@midway.uchicago.edu>

	"Truth by Blatant Assertion."
	<1992Aug27.015630.2175@midway.uchicago.edu>

-> c) Unsubstantiated accusation that I have willfully
-> lied on talk.abortion.

	"Truth by blatant assertion."
	<1992Aug26.233735.27613@midway.uchicago.edu>

	"Truth by Blatant Assertion."
	<1992Aug27.015630.2175@midway.uchicago.edu>

-> d) Unsubstantiated accusation that I had changed the
-> meaning of a quote from a Georgetown University law
-> professor.

	"Truth by blatant assertion."
	<1992Aug26.233735.27613@midway.uchicago.edu>

	"Truth by Blatant Assertion."
	<1992Aug27.015630.2175@midway.uchicago.edu>

what were you saying about unsubstantiated accusations,
dodie?

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: You be the Judge!
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:27:28 GMT

From article by gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis):
> 
> Let's leave the desert isle scene a minute...journey closer to home...
> 
> There is a woman tried and convicted of murder, and awaiting execution.
> Her appeals have all been exhausted, and she is due to die soon.
> She is, however, pregnant, having been raped by her father who is
> a prison guard.  The pregnancy itself is also life threatening, that is,
> it may kill her before the gas chamber does.  She requests an abortion.
> (oh yeah, she is exactly between the second and third trimester, as far
> as we can tell)
> 
> Should she get it?  

No.  Simply by being a convicted felon, she has already relinquished her
civil rights, even if one would be so arrogant as to even call abortion a
"right".


> Who pays for it?

Nobody.

 
> (You can't stay her execution, she's exhausted all the appeals.  
> What do you decide is moral in this bizarre situation, and why?)

You CAN stay her execution because you have not exhausted all the _fetus'_
appeals.   You see, despite current American abortion laws, unborn children
are legally represented in litigation all the time.


S. Forgach
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Monday, 24 Aug 1992 19:02:29 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup

In  <1992Aug20.202812.12068@ncsu.edu> Doug Holtsinger writes:

> I was wondering if there would be any interest in a moderated abortion
> newsgroup.  There are so many personal attacks and insults thrown around
> on talk.abortion that I thought it might be appropriate to have a newsgroup
> dedicated to calm and serious discussions of the issues.

> What do people think of the idea?

That it is not surprising that someone who desires
to control what women do with their bodies would
wish to control the content of people's posts.
I can't imagine any other reason for restricting
freedom of expression.

However for those that can't figure out how
to use a F key to kill articles that either
offend or bore them and for those that want
to turn the issue into milktoast a moderated
newsgroup would perhaps be convenient.



Linda
--
Democracies prefer to run the risk of error through the
free competition of viewpoints rather than to run the
risk of tyranny through curtailing what people may say,
see and hear.  If there be error, the answer to it
generally is not less but more communication.
  A. Borovoy, When Freedoms Collide
Newsgroups: talk.abortion