HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  3 Sep 92 00:18:58 GMT

In <24500@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

>>BTW, I put "pro-abortion organization" into every sentence of
>>my reply. That way, you can't delete part of my response and
>>ignore "pro-abortion organization". Unless you delete part
>>of a sentence (pro-abortion organization).

>DOD shows that he's falling apart at the seams. Regression is a horrible
>thing to witness, not cute at all....

>>Doug Holtsinger, wondering why Margolis relies on pro-abortion organizations
>>for his information.

>Maybe, Doug, you'd care to list those organizations which you will accept
>as unbiased sources, so that the rest of us won't have to submit 20,000
>sources to finally get one that you can't write off as "sounds like
>a pro-abortion organization." Unfortunately, any organization that supports
>choice is by your definition a pro-abortion organization, no matter
>what their actual stance is. So I imagine the only sources we'll see
>you consider unbiased are pro-lie organizations

Hear that, Dougie? Don't even think of quoting from a pro-life source,
you can see plainly how much they will believe you ("pro-lie").  Meanwhile
they feel perfectly justified in quoting from the Alan Guttmacher 
association, etc.  Since they have us outnumbered, they feel they
can go on treating us this way.

>, which we all know to
>be ever so thoughtful in trying to show everyone the truth. After all,
>they only claim pregnancy is wonderful, and that you should be estatic
>about that miracle in your tummy (even though it is going to nearly
>kill you or at the least cause you to be partially paralyzed)

Now, if we had them outnumbered, we could call this last parenthetical
statement a lie, and make it stick.  

> whereas
>the pro-choice organizations openly admit that abortions are dangerous
>as is carrying to term, and are generally honest in their presentations.

Given that Ron considers himself to be generally honest, I'm 
not surprised to hear him making this claim.

>Wonder all you want, you are obviuously clueless.

>Ron

Peter Ny.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: 29 Aug 92 18:13:59 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

eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
-> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> >rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
-> >> Has someone been picked to moderate the new group?
-> 
-> >Unfortunately, nobody's been brave enough to volunteer.
-> 
-> I was one of the people you mentioned as
-> possibilities, and I don't believe anybody's
-> objected.

i don't either.

-> I'm willing *in principle* to moderate 50 articles a
-> day or thereabouts for a talk.abortion.moderated
-> group (though I still think a mailing list would
-> work better).

i see no reason why a newsgroup which censors content
shouldn't also restrict the number of articles posted.

-> However, I am emphatically unwillling to moderate an
-> abortion group to remove flames if flames are
-> defined as any insults, attacks, etc.; the
-> definition is too general 

from the original proposal:

        "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."
		<1992Aug20.202812.12068@ncsu.edu>

i would think that if you're offering to moderate a
newsgroup, you might want to read the proposal for that
newsgroup so you'd know what you agreed to moderate.

-> and I'm not perfectly objective on the abortion
-> issue.

i don't believe that anyone has ever suggested that you
were.

-> Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley

        "For the woman, I'd support a jail sentence of at least a
        month, probably somewhat more, (six months to a year if
        we had unlimited space in non-hellhole prisons, but we
        don't), with hefty community service tacked on to that."
		<1992May25.234304.14516@midway.uchicago.edu>



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:02:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.203129.8310@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> 
mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> I believe it's wrong to kill any person simply because they suffer 
>> pain.  Who are we to decide whether any person is fit to live or
>> not?  That's a judgement which I can't make for someone else, nor 
>> would I want anyone else to make that judgement for me.  

> I believe it's wrong to force a woman to undergo an unwanted pregnancy
> simply because the fetus will become a person. Who are we to decide
> whether a woman should give birth or not? That's a judgement which I
> can't make for someone else, nor would I want anyone else to make that
> judgement for me.

Obviously you've highlighted the fundamental difference between the
pro-life and the pro-choice positions.  However I should point out
that few people want women to undergo unwanted pregnancies; pro-lifers 
simply want people to refrain from killing innocent human beings whenever
possible. 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: 1-900-fone-sex  (was: myths about PP or something)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:25:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.232705.986@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> Yeah, that's the only way Kathi Mills could ever get it. If talking
> about sex IS sex, that is. 

Now that is what I call unintended humor.  The little boy who
pretends he's an airplane making "I'm superior" noises at the hottest
redhead to pull on long black boots.

And she's cuter than a roomful of Care Bears.
 
> That's why I KILLfile'd that poster child in the first place. 

Not her loss, I can tell you that.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Subject: Re: And Now, You're A Coatrack!! Was: without even being asked ....
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:05:23 GMT

In <lefty-270892102052@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:

>> It is a shame to lose one's self-image... eh trashman?

>Why don't you tell us about it, "Superboy"?  I'd say that you're the
>leading expert on lost self-image around here.
>On the other hand, I guess you can't really lose what you've never had, eh,
>Stevie?

Well, I have gotten very good lately at ignoring your posts Lefty.
They've been, for the most part - boring, repetitive, and utterly
shallow and fruitless. However, this post I did manage to come across,
and for the life of me I can't explain it. 
   Where oh where have demonstrated any loss of confidence or self-image
Leftie? I guess you must have a pretty strong reason to have said this,
since you had the strong need to post it, so why don't you just come out
and explain it. I'm sure I"m not the only one that this stupid post
has annoyed and puzzled...

steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: Abortion:  My Views
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 16:37:20 GMT

> I can kind of agree with you here.  I believe the overwhelming majority
> of the people in this country support restrictions on abortion. 


If this were the case, then no debate would exist and restrictions would
already be in place.

The only way to test to see if an overwhelming majority supports
restrictions on abortion is when only the "criminal elements" in society
oppose those
restrictions.  This is definatly not the case.  

As a result, abortion should not be made illegal - it won't work, and will
only cause more harm.  People, who are not criminals, will still get
abortions and some of those people will die as a result of unsafe
practices.  Are you ready to kill?  I am not.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Susan Garvin, religious bigot (was Re: Doug Holsinger: Anti-Semite?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:17:29 GMT

Proving once again that being a moron doesn't keep him
from posting long, and rather boringly stupid articles,
we get Dennis Hall misreading an out of context quote
(the source of which is none other than Doug Holtsinger -
What?  Holtsinger quoting out of context?  I don't
believe it.)

In article <1992Sep1.201240.11704@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> 
> >##       "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
> 
> Gloria Feldt's LOGIC, which means her reasoning on this issue, which
> also means if she got a chance to write the law on it, is based on a
> RELIGIOUS perspective. 

That is just stupid.  Chahallney has no idea what she was talking
about, since the quote provides no context.  Considering her
position, a reasonable person, if he or she were to make an
assumption about context, would probably assume that she was
refering to her personal view as opposed to how she would
legislate, if she were to legislate.  Hell, there are elipses
in that quote, showing that Doogie hacked out material from
within the quote.  There is nothing in that quote about
legislation, so the rest of Stedennis's rant about the First
Amendment and so on is just the mindless maunderings of a
mental midget.

> GLORIA FELDT VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT, SUSAN GARVIN, JUST AS
> SURELY AS RANDALL TERRY.

Since Gloria Feldt is not Congress, and since there is no reason to
believe that this quote was intended by Ms Feldt as suggested by
Hallchaney, and since there is reason to believe that it was not
intended as suggested by airplane boyness,

with regard to the remarks about the First Amendment by the
infamous Borg Dogfood Boy

his statement is not correct.

Dean Kaflowitz

Please don't say "good-bye"
Just say "aloha"
You will never ever find another kanaka like me
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors ... perform third trimester abortions"
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 02:04:08 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  <1992Aug30.184325.9521@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug30.035846.40919@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
> >dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> >>
> >> The transcript does not mention the source of Stahl's claim
> >> about the "three doctors".  I may write to 60 Minutes to ask
> >> them for a source.  It doesn't appear that Mr. Margolis is
> >> willing to track down the source.
>
> > That's right - I'm not.  As far as I know, it's true.
>
> In other words, you're unable to admit that you were wrong
> when you stated that 60 Minutes supported your claims,
> and now you've fallen back on ``truth by blatant assertion''
> to support your claims.

I didn't even see 60 Minutes.  You asked for a source, and you had just
quoted someone (Steve Arnold, I believe) stating they saw it on 60 Minutes,
so I pointed out that you appeared rather foolish.  I got the information
off the net long ago.

I note that you deleted the following, as you have every time you've
been challenged.  I guess you are just unwilling to admit that the
facts show your scare tactics to be a lie.
>  If you can list more doctors that perform third tri abortions, or you can
>  document for me cases of women getting third-trimester abortions for
>  "frivolous" reasons, I would of course change my tune.  Unlike some, I
>  don't knowingly pass on lies.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.discrimination
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Re: All discrimination is not equal -- or wrong
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:11:07 GMT

eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

>In article <1992Sep1.004203.22844@ncsu.edu>
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>Can you name some?  I can't think of any situations where a person
>>could "deserve" to be called a name with such clear racist overtones.  

>While I certainly agree that Patrick Humphrey's use of the term "fat
>black ass" was utterly unjustified, I have to say that they are some
>bizarre circumstances when one is justified in using the term.  For
>example, if you're trying to distract a drugged crazy from his
>hostages so that they can escape, you're justified in calling him (or
>anyone else) anything you dam' well please.

>-- 
>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.

I also feel that the use of the term was unjustified.  Of course, I also 
believe that Mr. Chaney's frequent use of "bitch" is unjustified.  I don't 
feel that using names or words with racist, sexist, or otherwise, ummm,
obnoxious overtones is justified.  I don't think anyone "deserves" to be
called such names.  I don't use them, but I can see how someone, looking
at Mr. Chaney's posts and his use of words with clearly sexist overtones
might get the idea that he wouldn't mind the shoe being on the other foot.


Lori Kent Rothman
usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu

my opinions...
From: spinoza@next10pg2.wam.umd.edu (J. Skorecki-Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:39:43 GMT

In article <BtnyzD.MI8.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)  
writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.202634.11650@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne  
Forgach) writes:
> #From article by gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga):
> ## 
> ## Tell me Doug, do the *number* of people who object to something have  
any
> ## bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the event or action?
> #
> #Hell Gordon, why do you think Pro-Lifers laugh up their sleeves every  
time
> #pro-"choicers" cite polls inflating their numbers?   (Hint: it just  
doesn't
> #matter.)
> 
> Well, then, Suzanne, can you explain why Jack Willke falsely 
> inflated the membership of the NRLC while he was president?
> Did you laugh at him?
> 
No, no,no, you're missing Suzanne's point entirely. You see, it doesn't  
matter what polls say NOW, because CometheRevolution, EVERYONE will like  
strawberries, and NO ONE will be in favor of allowing women to make  
choices for themselves, you see. Polls won't matter in the  
WorldAccordingtoForgach 'cause people are much happier when they don't  
have to make tough decisions by themselves, since the  
MorallySuperiorRighttoLifePreservingOurPreciousBodilyFluids people will be  
happy to make such decisions for us......
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: DOS indulges her obsession with false accusations
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:03:13 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

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> And it's also a safe bet that Susan Garvin will
-> continue to post false accusations.

to the best of my knowledge, susan garvin has never
posted a false accusation to t.a.

can you support your seemingly untrue statement?

(if you do try to do so, please refrain from your silly
listing of "unsubstantiated accusations" which were, in
fact, substantiated statements.)



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:56:22 GMT
Keywords: Reinforcements

In article <1992Aug25.162016.23519@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.124039.11946@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> > Fetuses had never received legal protection under the law,
> 
> This statement is not correct.
> 

Yes it is.
From: ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Abortion" on a not-pregnant woman
Date: 30 Aug 92 16:27:36 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute

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

Do the rules of evidence apply at these meetings?
Did anyone verify or ask the clinic to "testify"
regarding these allegations?

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

I doubt anyone would find it "offensive" for the
reasons you might think.  I do wonder about people
who accept such "testimony" as proof however.

>        "One woman came to the clinic forcing her daughter to have
>an abortion.

The counter example of why parental consent laws
should not be created and why teenaged women
should be permitted to make medical decisions
themselves.

>        "I became depressed, despondent, and hooked on drugs.
>I took drugs to wake up, took speed at work, and took pot and
>alcohol in the evening.  I also took birth control pills and
>developed amenorrhea.  The abortion mill assumed I was pregnant
>and gave me an abortion, but it turned out I wasn't pregnant.

Why did this woman not take a pregnancy test?
Could it be that the "abortion mill" performed
a D & C which is a common practice with women
suffering from amenorrhea?  Can you tell the
difference between a D & C and a D & E, Mr. Nykios?

>        "Finally, when I decilded to give my life to the Lord,
>I got out of the abortion business.  I told my husband that I
>wanted to get out of the `rat race' and get a new job in a new
>town.  Then, when I got pregnant, a physician recommended I
>get an abortion because of the drugs I had taken.  He predicted
>deformity.  I absolutely refused to get the abortion, and now I have
>a beautiful four-year-old girl -- my `miracle baby' whose picture

Which is what choice is all about.


Linda
--
All I know is that it's a matter of choice
I need to hear myself
I need to own my voice
Livin' in democracy
   The Parachute Club, Freedom Song
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: "And maybe flog the little b*tch to teach her a lesson"
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:43:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.012328.29901@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.014234.22338@samba.oit.unc.edu>
>Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>
>>	What I *really* want to know is:  why does she feel that someone who
>>contracts for the murder of a child shouldn't be punished?
>>	Sounds like a lack of family values to me!  >:-)>
>
>In the past she's said that the woman can fool herself into thinking a
>z/e/f isn't a child; an abortionist of necessity has enough
>information about embryology to know better.
>
>Personally, I find that line of reasoning rather insulting.
>
	Not only insulting, but legally bogus.  If the law says an embryo is
a human being, it doesn't matter what the person who paid for the murder
claims to understand or not understand.  It would still be necessary to
bring a charge of contract murder for the crime of paying to have a human
being killed.  That's the legal situation that *must* result from the
passage of the Human Life Amendment or similar legislation.

>
>-- 
>Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
>            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
>
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion