HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: DangerousWomenTypes
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:57:36 GMT

dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
] 
] Once I accept that failure to implant is the moral equivalent
] of leaving a baby out in the woods, I have to conclude that 
] women have some sort of "duty to rescue" these blastocysts
] in peril, .....
[ part where he shows this is absurd deleted...] 
] Also in question is the matter of how far women must go to
] try to rescue these lives in peril?  If it is determined
] (and this is pure speculation on my part) that an iron-rich
] diet will increase the chances of implantation, do we conclude
] that sexually active women who refuse to adjust their diets 
] accordingly are guilty of some great moral evil?  Likewise are 
] sexually active world-class female athletes to be shunned because 
] their activity (again speculating here) increases the chance that
] implantation will fail?  If these methods of skewing the
] odds against pregnancy are OK, then why not with an IUD?

It seems OBVIOUS, to the casual Observer,
that there are Women Who are Failing to 
do their PART, and MUST be REGULATED.....

{Minor note: Female Athletes need not be of 'world class'
to put potential complications in the way of their ReproductiveDuty! }

Which brings us Back around again to what
do these AntiAbortionists REALLY MEAN,
and what are they REALLY concerned about
when they go wobbling off about abortifacients.....

Hopefully after Four More Years of G. Bush, 
and then 8 more Years of J.D.Quayle, we
will no longer have these DangerousWomenTypes
failing to fulfill their ReproductiveDuty 
because they have been lead astray by 
ModernSeXularHumanism......

ciao
drieux




-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Re: L. L. Bean allows anti-choice candidate to use company property
Summary: Well, she's got one thing right.
Organization: Boye, Dewey, Cheetham and Howe, Atty's.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:56:11 GMT

In article <28503@option.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>Linda Loraine Bean, a candidate for Congress from the First District
>in Maine, was allowed to use the premises of L. L. Bean, the boot
>stitching factory to be precise, to film a television commercial for
>her campaign.  She is adamantly anti-choice, as well as anti-gay
>rights legislation and anti-gun control.

Batting .333 there; at least she's pro-choice on the right of
self-defense and firearm recreation.

Gay rights... I can see that from both sides.  I don't like
people picking on my friends, but neither do I like goverment
mandating that people have to deal with others.  If business
wants to reject paying customers or good employees, that's
stupid, but being stupid shouldn't be a crime.

Now if someone can get her to see that government control of
reproduction and the doctor-patient relationship is anathema to
the philosophy of limited government, maybe she'll come around.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Putting out the fire, sort of
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 00:01:37 GMT

In article <Bt8y42.9EL@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.160427.14903@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>In article <Bt7y3F.FHF@rice.edu> 
>>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>
>>> Therefore, to y'all who might
>>> have been upset at that screw-up on my part, I apologize.  To Steve, though,
>>> I will NOT apologize -- save on one condition:  he comes down here to 
>>> receive it in person.  If he wants my respect, he'll have to put forth some
>>> effort to earn it.
>>
>>I didn't ask for an apology from you, I said that I thought you should
>>apologize to Mr. Chaney.  I still believe that. 
>
>Believe it all you want.  You've seen my conditions for that happening -- he
>can take it or leave it.  I suspect he doesn't have the balls to take it.

I read that whole post, Harumphrey. 

The translation: Unless Chaney becomes a good little boy and makes me
happy, I won't apologize to him directly for being caught while still 
taking off my Ku Klux Klan uniform. 

>(You can now start misquoting me out of context, Doug.  Give it your best
>shot for once, eh?)

Hard to do that when the big coned white hood is still half-fixed over
your head, PatricKKK. 



===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
	        With the little girl's consent, of course. 
		 Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this? 
===============================================================================
Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation 
Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   And a Democrat to Boot | 
                           <<<=== Pro-Life ===>>> 
===============================================================================
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: bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Recreational Creationists, Inc.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:20:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.163353.6443@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <l8hms5INN4n9@girtab.usc.edu> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
>
>Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports exceptions for rape
>and incest, and for the life of the mother.   
>

	With a special exception for family members.. naturally.
Unless a pregnant First Grandchild's already covered by what Doug
said.  Naturally.

	-rj
--
Ranjan Bagchi:   Di.sigsgvirusuise                 Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
oo   oooo  o oo   ooo oo oo   oo       o o  oooo ooo o       o        oooooooo
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to not vote for Bush
Date: 14 Aug 1992 16:47:18 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Aug14.131533.24782@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.050110.39709@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> Your statement is a gross mischaracterization of those people who
>>> call themselves pro-life.  Many religious people do offer reasoned
>>> arguments about abortion which are not based upon the existence of
>>> God.  In addition, there are many non-religious people who oppose
>>> abortion.

>> His statement is a generalization, not a gross mischaracterization.
>> He is being unfair to those who oppose abortion for non-religious
>> reasons, but there are many, many fanatical fundies on the anti-abortion
>> side.

>Your statement is an appeal to anti-religious bigotry.  Focusing solely  
>on the religious segment of the pro-life movement is designed to appeal 
>to anti-religious bigotry, in the same way that focusing on the color
>of a person's skin in a debate about Affirmative Action is an appeal 
>to racism.  

DOD is starting to sound _a_ _great_ _deal_ like Rasmuffen here....

>Doug Holtsinger

Eric
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 21 Aug 1992 16:19:11 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <RJOHNSON.92Aug21132101@conus.shell.com> rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
> >What was your point?
>My point is that prior to birth, death of the fetus is an
>alternative; after birth, it is not.  There is no consistent
>way of believing both:
>	1. the fetus is a person 
>	2. abortion is acceptable
>without believing that
>	3. infanticide is acceptable (if it's a painful and difficult
>	   decision)

You would be wrong.

EVEN IF the fetus is a person, the fetus is STILL impinging upon the body
of a woman who may very well NOT WANT IT THERE.  Given that women are still
human beings in our society, women have the right to determine the use to
which their bodies will be put, and women therefore retain the right to 
expel the fetus, even if it means death to the fetus, prior to birth.

The presence of the fetus WITHIN the physical body of the woman is what 
gives her the right to determine it's fate.  And that has zip, nada, nothing
to do with any hypothetical infanticides.

The argument you present above is simply incorrect.

While it makes a certain amount of sense for you to do your own arguing about
your own particular position, it doesn't make much sense for you to set up
arguments for others.  They are frequently inaccurate, and mostly a waste 
of time.


Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:09:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.202157.23639@gordian.com> 
mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:

> The fallacy here, of course, is that a person does not have a
> right to life; a person has the right to the *pursuit* of life. Nature
> does not provide food-and-shelter trees which are freely available.
> Rights are rights of potential, not substance. A fetus cannot demand
> the sacrifice of another persons rights just by *being*, any more
> than you can demand me to sacrifice my life to your benifit without
> my permission. 

This paragraph is logically incoherent.  The poster assumes 
that a fetus is a person, and then he goes on to claim that a 
fetus cannot demand the sacrifice of another person's right
to pursue life.  Yet he also claims that a person is entitled
to demand the sacrifice of the fetus' right to pursue life,
who is also a person.  

The last sentence seemingly gives credence to the pro-life 
viewpoint, since a person would not be entitled to demand the
sacrifice of the fetus' life to provide for their benefit. 

>Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)


Doug Holtsinger, aka DearOldDoug
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:25:58 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) lies,
rants, misrepresents, and otherwise distorts everything:
>In article <1992Aug19.040055.33822@watson.ibm.com>
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

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

>>> I've never quoted you or anyone else out of context.

>> This is a lie.  You've done so many times.

>This statement is not correct.

Failing to prove anything, dougie bowser has taken his opposition's
tactic (after tiring of explaining why everything was wrong/lie/mis-
reperesented) of just indicating which statements are incorrect, in 
keeping with his track record of being uniformally and fairly consistantly 
wrong.

>>In article <1992Aug7.015850.14920@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
>>Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>"Take responsibility for your children, or we will force you to do it."
>>> -- Bill Clinton, speaking at the Democratic National Convention

>That statement was not taken out of context.  Everyone knows what
>he's talking about.

But the way you use it, with your view, places it out of context. I'm
surprised you continue to use it when all here know its true irony.
Perhaps you're attempting to mislead anyone not familiar with your misap-
plication of quotes and articles?

>>> Chris Lyman is a sexist for believing that all women think alike on
>>> the issue of abortion.

>> Doug is a liar.  Chris Lyman has never posted anything that would
>> imply this.

>Yes, he has, he just doesn't want to admit it.

Dougie, this is not an argument. You are a liar until you prove everyone
else wrong. Chris does not have to 'admit' anything, if it's true, why
don't you dig up the appropiate reference and show everyone that for
once you're not lying? Then again, I imagine you'll be looking a long
time, as I don't believe Chris would ever say something like that, although
I'm sure with your talents, you'd find a way to warp "my girlfriend
likes ice cream" to say that I thought all women think alike with sno
cones.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: L. L. Bean allows anti-choice candidate to use company property
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:24:37 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <28503@option.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>Linda Loraine Bean, a candidate for Congress from the First District
 ^     ^       ^^^^
>in Maine, was allowed to use the premises of L. L. Bean, the boot
                                              ^  ^  ^^^^
Are these people related?

>stitching factory to be precise, to film a television commercial for
>her campaign.  She is adamantly anti-choice, as well as anti-gay
>rights legislation and anti-gun control.  I verified all of this by
>calling L. L. Bean, (800) 341-4341, myself.  I also informed them that
>I would not longer purchase their products.  I urge all pro-choice
>persons to do the same.

If Linda is a family member, I doubt you will gain much by calling.

Most people who have taken the Pro-Life side have decided that it
is not a financial issue, but a moral issue.  So one's decision to
not buy from them would not be seen as a great loss and possibly
be seen as gain.

>SJM

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Only God Can Help Us!
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:58:18 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug20.175632.1298@medtron.medtronic.com>, ck10322@china.medtronic.com (Cameron Kaszas) writes:
> 
>    gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> 
>    > The life or death of the "unborn" should never hinge on politics or 
>    > legislation.  Darned if I can figure out why some people who claim 
>    > so much understanding think that is a clever idea...
> 
> 
> This is one of the few intelligent things I read when I scanned this
> group recently (IMHO).  

[...]

I really like the ideas behind this article, even though it's incredibly
condescending to "non-Christians".  It's nice to see that some "Christians"
have the capability to understand they are unable to control everybody else.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca

PS.  I've been witnessed too many times which is likely why I feel this way
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 06:15:04 GMT

From article by bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt):
> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> #
> # WHY DO YOU THINK TEENAGE GIRLS --GET-- PREGNANT, GORDON??!!
> # 
> # It's not even half as much their sex drives as it is their
> # desperate, mistaken, attempts to find love in a crazy, misguided world!!
> # 
> # And you know what??  If they'd let their pregnancies go to term, they'd
> # have it.
> 
> This little gem was my favorite post of the last seven days.
> 
> Finally, world peace is at hand....


Motherly love is the answer.


SF
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 20 Aug 1992 13:06:21 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Aug20.183133.24972@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:
>In article <nyikos.713884299@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>Tell me another one, Ms. Regard!
>
>I'm not Ms. Regard, but I thought I'd butt in anyway...


Just wanted to point out:  Peter was so anxious to get my response that he
sent these posts to me via email and I responded to him there.  Since the 
questions posed aren't very interesting, I won't bore the net.  But, then
the posts appeared at my site about 6 days later.....hmmmm.

Adrienne Regard
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32226 alt.politics.bush:1929
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM ( Corp. Net Ops)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Summary: Hear! Hear!
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:29:00 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc., Vienna, VA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

In article <l8vi0uINNeu4@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
> Tim Buckley) writes:
> 
> Right-to-life is a religious war, not an intellectual one.

I agree with this wholeheartedly...

I find it interesting that pro-lifers only quote the bible when
it suits their argument. Why doesn't anyone stand up and say
"God says NO!" when an emergency-room doctor warms up the paddles,
and administers a shock to a heart attack victim's chest? Are
we not defying the great order of things by pasteurizing milk?
What about using neosporin on a cut, or seeing the dentist for
a toothache? All of these are the sciences of mankind, they all
act to arrest the progression of disease, and attempt to defy
the balance of life that existed when man evolved.

My point in the above tirade is that if you subscribe to man's
science (and most of us do), then you should have the temperance
to accept what you disagree with. After all, even abortion is
medical innovation.

We should spend less time debating the right to life, and more
time improving the lives of those already here. How many of you
pro-lifers would consider adopting every child you wish to create
by banning abortion? I thought so...

-- Mike

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: This is my opinion. Not my employer's. I don't know
what my employer's opinion is, and I'm not trying to represent
it here.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:07:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug14.121232.13337@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>  decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>
> Damn.  I have got to get a copy of that Constitution everyone else
> is using.  I keep seeing people talk about the "right to life"
> as it were a constitutional statement, and then I go home and
> check my copies of the Constitution and there's nothing in there
> about a right to life.

Take your food^H^H^H^Hword processor.  Load the Constitution (omitting
the ikky bits that you don't like).  Add portions of the Declaration of
Independence.  Press Blend.

(If you find this hard to swallow, take it with a grain of salt.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:18:18 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = Steve Chaney:
>>> = Patrick L. Humphrey:

>>> Come on, Steve.  Let's see just how much of a boy you are.  March your
>>> fat black ass down here and tell me I'm a liar, to my face. 
>>> 					- PatricKKK L. Humphrey  

>> That's right.  I wrote it, and I apologized to anyone else who was offended
>> by it.  The only apology you'll get from me is when you show enough backbone
>> to come down here and get it in person.  If you're too chicken for that, hey
>> -- you're the one that has to live with that...

>I'm offended that you did not apologize to Steve Chaney for that remark.
>Apologize and get it over with.  Nobody is going to hoot and holler over
>it.  I will continue to ask you to apologize to Steve Chaney.  

How about, right after you and Chaney apologize for your innumerable lies
and deception?  

Holtsinger, you are one pathetic, dishonest scumbag of a human being.
Obviously, you enjoy that.  Not many friends, huh, Doogie?

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:26:02 GMT

In <ohgc6so@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:


>In article <BsxsG4.MuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu writes:
>|Sorry Adrienne but again this is simple.  If one believes that
>|the fetus is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right
>|to life takes precedence over other rights.  It isn't that the
>|woman does not have rights it is that they are subservient to
>|the right to life of the fetus.

>Keep spelling it out for us.  How would you resolve the various
>conflicts of rights which can result in a pregnancy?  Does this
>belief of yours mean that:

Hope you don't mind my butting in with my own answers.  By the way,
Ms. Regard, in case you can see this, did you see any of my 
follow-ups to your posts of July, or any of my posts?

>  - The fetus takes precedence over the woman's financial needs?
>    (no abortion in cases where the woman can't afford to support
>     a child, would lose job, etc.)

The life of the fetus does, yes.  [Fetus: developing human after 8 
weeks.  I don't want to get bogged down on much earlier z/e/f's
at this point.]

>  - The fetus takes precedence over the woman's mental wellbeing?
>    (no abortion in cases where the stress of continued pregnancy
>    would impair the mental health of the woman)

Ditto.  

>  - The fetus takes precedence over the woman's health?
>    (no abortion in cases of danger to woman's health)

Ditto, unless the danger is of a debilitation so severe that the
woman would almost be better off dead.

>  - The fetus's right to life takes precedence over the woman's
>    right to life?  (no abortion in cases of danger to the
>    woman's life)

Negative to that one.  However, I know of no examples at this advanced
state of our knowledge except ectopic pregnancy, which is very often
taken care of before the fetal stage.  


>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
>"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

If men could have abortions, pregnancy would be a sacrament.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion