HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Substantiated accusations by Susan Garvin
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:20:24 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Aug27.205632.5585@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes the usual lies
and mistruths, this time with the intent of slandering Susan Garvin:

>a) Unsubstantiated accusation that I had been making up sources 
>   for an article that Susan Garvin had never seen:
>
>    > I have more sources which I shall post shortly. 
>
>    "(As soon as he makes them up.)"

This is not an accusation but an observation, and one that was argued
to be correct in several posts at the time it was made.

>b) Unsubstantiated accusation that I had doctored a quote from a 
>   Planned Parenthood official from an article that had been
>   posted to the net: 
>
>    "We need more pro-forcers like Holtsinger who are willing
>     to doctor quotes that are easily checked, too.  What did
>     you delete from the PP quote, DOD?"

You doctor quotes all the time, DOD.  Your willful misrepresentation
of Bill Clinton's acceptance speech being one of the more recent and
widely discussed.

>c) Unsubstantiated accusation that I have willfully lied on 
>   talk.abortion:  
>
>    "(I'd prefer to think that Nyikos is merely
>     ignorant rather than a willful liar like Holtsinger until
>     I see more from him.)"

You willfully misrepresented the danger to abortion rights of a vote
for Bush, neglecting to mention that he would veto the FOCA and
stating that he might or might not get to appoint new justices to the
Supreme Court.  As anyone who follows current affairs knows, it is a
virtual certainty that he will get to replace at least one judge if
reelected.  

>d) Unsubstantiated accusation that I had changed the meaning
>   of a quote from a Georgetown University law professor: 
>
>    "I accomplished what I meant to accomplish -
>     I showed that your selective editing of people's words
>     is not limited to net articles, but to published works
>     as well."

All true.  I find substantiation in your past behavior for every one
of Susan's `accusations.'

SJM

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:51:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.233640.18908@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <1992Aug8.200402.20320@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug7.161207.13226@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>>>>Greg
>>>>
>>>>Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.
>>
>>Standard response:  So does eating a steak.
>>
>
>YASR (Yet another standard response)
>
>Of course, the steak didn't come from a human being. . . I hope.

If Greg had pointed out more details, he might have had a point.

-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Highly Opinionated, Aging  and                      knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
            Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:34:19 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>>>> Just in case there was any doubt about the mindset of some of the
>>>> Republican Party's leading lights, Pat Robertson recently wrote a
>>>> letter criticizing the Equal Rights Amendment, suggesting that
>>>> feminists want women to kill their children and practice witchcraft.

>>> Interesting use of the word "suggesting."  Just how strongly did he
>>> suggest it?  Robertson is much too astute to make blanket statements
>>> like the one you say he suggested.

>> Funny you should say that.  I came across the AP report about an hour
>> later and posted it.  He said pretty close to the following:

>>       "It is about a movement that encourages women to leave their
>>       husbands, kill their children, destroy capitalism, practice
>>       witchcraft and become lesbians." [quoted from memory]

Here's the relevant extract from the AP story:

	But Mr. Robertson's letter, distributed late last month to supporters
	of the evangelical organization Christian Coalition, described the
	proposal as part of a "feminist agenda" that "is not about equal
	rights for women."

The 'proposal,' incidentally, is a proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Iowa
State Constitution, to be voted on in November.  Note the use of the term
'feminist agenda.'

And here is the exact quote.  My memory isn't _too_ defective. :-)

	Instead, the letter said, "it is about a socialist, anti-family,
	political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands,
	kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and
	become lesbians."

> Hmmm.  Maybe I gave Robertson more credit than he deserves.  On the other
> hand, the quote does not say which "movement" he is referring to.  From
> the wording, I would guess that he is talking about a book, and what it
> is about, and my one remaining question (unless the answer raises new ones)
> is whether this movement is the whole feminist movement, or some subset
> of it, like Wicca.

He wasn't talking about a book, Peter, he was talking about the Iowa ERA.
And here's a free clue:  Wicca is _not_ a subset of the feminist movement.

-- 
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
From: zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life at Conception? [def'n of "fetus"]
Date: 2 Sep 1992 20:25:23 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zapodid.aero.org
Summary: no, it's *not* Latin for "baby"
Keywords: Latin, ignorance

In article <BtyquB.C9A@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>,
	 ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy) writes:

>It is interesting to note that "fetus" is the Latin word for "baby"
>
>ata

	It is interesting to note how many folks blithely
	offer this misinformation as if it were true. Folks
	who have actually studied Latin will tell the real
	story: not only doesn't it mean "baby", it (in adjective
	form) refers to the pregnant *woman*, not her contents.

	The actual Latin definitions have been posted here before;
	I'll repeat them (from Cassell's Latin Dictionary) if "ata"
	is interested in something other than tracts.
				Dave Suess	zeus@aerospace.aero.org


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: A crack in the iron curtain?
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:31:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.033824.1708@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
|phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
|-> I just wanted to step in and say I support E.
|-> Elizabeth Bartley's position and agree with it.
|
|are you sure, pete? here's what ms. bartley has posted
|about the women who would have the abortions ms.
|bartley wants to legislate against.
|
|        "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>

Well, this part I'm not sure of.  What is the current punishment for
infanticide?  If this is less than that, I could go along with such a
punishment for third-tri abortions for reasons not relating to the health
and/or viability of the woman or fetus.  It would have to be pretty
conclusively shown, though, that the intent was to kill a viable fetus.

I doubt we would have many of these, though, seeing as there are so few
third-tri abortions, and I know of none that are not done because of a health
threat to the mother or fetus.  The main reasons I agree with Ms. Bartley are
because I am uncomfortable with allowing a high-probability viable fetus to
be killed for any reason other than this, and because I feel this compromise
stance is more likely to be accepted by a majority of US citizens than
specifying that a woman should be allowed to abort (and kill the fetus) all
the way up to birth.

Note that I am definitely in favor of abortion on demand through the 24th week
of pregnancy.  I know that opens me to pro-life zealots chanting about the
fact that one or two pre-24th week fetuses have survived -- but I don't
believe that extraordinary occurances should be allowed to be used to define
the term "viable".  I feel that equating viability with 25 weeks is a good
compromise stance, even though 25 week fetuses are probably not usually very
viable.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

"Don't say yes until I finish talking."
		-- Darryl F. Zanuck
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Don't inhale (was Re: Life at conception...)
Keywords: Blatant hypocrisy
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:17:54 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Aug25.002241.11735@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <23768@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>>Isn't a grown-up (ie adult, person) more than an entity? I think so,
>>that's why we call them a person, or similar terms. An entity, as used
>>here, meant non-person, wich no matter how you weasel, a fetus never
>>is, nor will be, as when it becomes a person, it is no longer a fetus.
>>Hence your statement is meaningless to the original statement.

>A fetus is more than just an entity, too, and to equate them as being less
>than persons, is discrimination.

>The same kind of discrimination that leads friends of yours, like PatricKKK
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Humphrey, to refer to people like me as "black ass".

You seem to be assuming that Ron Bense and Patrick Humphrey are friends 
simply because they are both pro-choice.  I have seen no other reason 
which would lead you to the conclusion that they are friends.  

Such an assumption is called stereo-typing.  

How would you feel if someone automatically assumed you were friends with 
another black person simply because you both happen to be African-Americans?  
Or perhaps, a more relevant example: how would you feel if somebody thought 
you were friends with Mark Kaufman simply because you both like to rant?


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Other Flip-Floppers on abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:55:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.205226.9147@ncar.ucar.edu> 
kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

> Roe v. Wade:
> "If  the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it 
> may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period except when it 
> is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother"
>
> Doe v. Bolton:
> "life or health of the mother" might mean "all factors -- physical, 
> emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to 
> the well-being of the patient"
>
> WRT "abortion on demand throughout pregnancy", 
> it seems a distinction must be made between
> (Roe v. Wade), (Doe v. Bolton), and (Roe v. Wade + Doe v. Bolton)

Exactly!  

Now consider the following quote from Roe v. Wade:

  "In Doe v. Bolton, 410 US 179, 35 L Ed 2d 201, 93 S Ct 739,
   procedural requirements contained in one of the modern
   abortion statutes are considered.  That opinion and this
   one, of course, are to be read together[67]."

   Roe v. Wade, 35 L Ed 2d at 184 (1973)


>-Brian


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: So Bush does not hold that abortion is murder?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 19:50:21 GMT

mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill) writes:
] In talk.abortion, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill) writes:
] >
] >] Clearly Herbert believes that the fetus is a human being.
] >] Therefore Herbert also believes that it is guilty, without trial,
] >] of being an accessory to the rape.
] >
] >
] >rape is NOT always considered a capital crime
] >for the perpetrator, let alone an acomplice....
] >
] 
] Rape may not be a capital crime for an adult but, according
] to Herbert's reasoning, it is for a fetus.  Warped, isn't it?
] Humans can be so inconsistant and illogical.  If you say a
] banana is blue, I'll agree to that as long as a lemon is
] also blue.  Let's have it one way, or the other.  Law's will never
] be respected when they make no logical or practical sense.

Now, I'd Be VERY CAREFUL what I went around saying about
George HERBERT[1] Walker Bush, Commander in Chief of the
United States Military.....

He ws forth right in pointing out how he supports the
right to life of the born and the unborn.... and sees
no complications in this stance and the ability to
put military units on alert, or into action.....

Such a Flexible Mind is Capable of the GreaterUnderstanding....

ciao
drieux

[1] should this be cross post to rec.sf.start-trek.art.political.implications
as 'HERBERT' was used in an episode to denote 'NotTheNicePeople.'



-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:07:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.234047.14310@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:

lf> Lance Franklin
dh> Doug Holtsinger
> Astro Boy

>dh>In article <1992Sep2.032432.10808@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>lf>In article <1992Aug31.191507.17372@ncmicro.lonestar.org> 
>lf>ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin) writes:
>
>lf> What annoys me is that, although the "anti-choice-to-abort" people seem
>lf> to think that their arguments are superior, they evidently do not trust
>lf> women to see this for themselves. 
>
>dh>You make it sound as if every woman is pro-choice.  Women are individuals 
>dh>who have a variety of opinions on abortion.  Please don't ignore their
>dh>individuality.  
>
>I believe this exchange right here shows that DOD has a severe reading
>comprehension problem.  I really see no point in arguing with someone
>who has such trouble with the written word.  

You mean you argue with yourself and now you're going to stop? 



Doug Holtsinger is pointing out that while Lance Franklin figures
women will think on their own, Lance forgets that the pro-life
movement includes quite a big number of WOMEN who have "seen this for
themselves" and who AGREE with the pro-life movement. They are one
part of the "diversity" which Doug was talking about - and no SMALL
part, either, with that 1.5 million-member women's group hanging
around Washington now, standing for the pro-life cause. 

In other words, King Astro Boy of NASA, Lance Franklin's principle
works AGAINST him as well as FOR him. 
 
>dh>Doug Holtsinger

>Dan King


=============================================================================
>##       "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>
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|                                                                           |
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
=============================================================================
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: gagrawal@cs.tamu.edu (Gopal Agrawal)
Subject: Re: aborting females
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Texas A&M University
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 05:02:45 GMT

In article <5748@catnip.berkeley.ca.us>, tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
|> Here's an idea to hinder sex-selection abortions.
|> 
|> When the results of amniocentesis are given, the gender of the fetus should
|> not be given at that time:  only the other medical information.  ONLY when
|> the woman has signed an agreement to either continue or terminate the 
|> pregnancy based ONLY on the non-gender medical facts, may she then know the
|> sex of the fetus.
|> 
|> Would that be acceptable to the pro-lifers?
|> 

How would you stop the doctors from volunteering that information for 
a few extra bucks ?! 

[I'm not entirely pro-life or pro-choice. I'm confused].

regards,
--   
   ______ ______ ______ ______ __  |\/\/\/|
    ____/  __  /  __  /  __  /  /  |  \  /|   LIFE'S COMPLEX - IT HAS 
   / __   /   /  /   /  /   /  /   | (o)(o)   REAL & IMAGINARY PARTS  
  /   /  /   /   ___/  __  /  /    C      _) 
_____/ _____/ __/   __/ __/ ______/ | \___|  
E-mail - gagrawal@cs.tamu.edu       |   /   All Std. Disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Fetal Independence
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 06:25:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.213046.24888@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
# In article <1992Aug20.044113.21188@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
# >In article <1992Aug19.221008.1083@ncsu.edu>, dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# ># A person can kill in self-defense only when they can reasonably
# ># believe that their life is in _immediate_ danger. Most pregnancies
# ># do not fit that requirement.   
# >
# >Tell you what, Mr. Holtsinger -- when the lab finishes testing our new
# >AndroWomb[TM], we'll have you fitted for one at no costs so you can
# >rethink your opinion on whether the prospect of undergoing surgery to
# >have eight pounds of bouncing, lovable infanthood removed from your
# >body is something that involves _immediate_ danger.
# 
# Well, we'll wait until then, shall we? When your little device is
# finished, you can do one of two things: 
# 
# 1) Prove Doug Holtsinger was wrong. 
# 2) Manufacture a bunch of these devices to incubate fetuses on their
# own, seeing as once you've invented the AndroWomb[TM], the abortion
# debate would be dead because pro-lifers would have the instant 99%
# majority vote to FORCE you to use the device and NOT kill any more
# unborn children. 
# 
# >In the mean time, what's yer point?
# 
# What's YOUR point? You haven't invented the device yet. 

Mr. Chaney -- do work on that attention span of yours. Hmmm?

Perhaps I should have been more straightforward, and politely
challenged your statement that most pregnancies do not fit the
requirement of immediate mortal threat, with a blatant assertion that
you're packed full of shit and let it go at that.

But no! I had to be flip, and in so doing I completely WHOOOSH-ed over
your head.  Unintentionally.

Trouble is, I doubt I could get you to even understand what I was
getting at in the original post without having to lecture you at
length about the meaning of the words `immediate,' `mortal,' and
`threat,'  something I'm entirely to busy to do at the moment.

So. Do you still want to chew on it?


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"When people reached the last drop of their drinks, the face of Larry
Storch would seem to look out at them from the bottom, belch
contentedly and say, ``Now I am truly what I always was.  Pass the
corn nuts.''"
						     -- Larne Pekowsky
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 16:36:55 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


fo>In article <1992Sep4.110158.17725@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de writes:
lm>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
 
lm> A number of women have reported that they have no regrets about
lm> their abortion.  Does this mean that the argument falls, or are
lm> you questioning their honesty? 
 
fo>For me, the "abortion is murder" argument falls if one women 
fo>who has experienced it can honestly say their conscience is fine.
 
I guess you missed Kathi Mill's response to you earlier.  I just so
happen to still have her response.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <1992Sep2.231347.21611@rigel.econ.uga.edu>  mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de writes:


>Fine, if that's true.  I don't want statistics.  I'd settle
>for one honest woman who can look into her heart and tell, not me,
>nor you, but herself, that this is the case.  Not saying, "all in all,
>trading this against that, I did the right thing", but "I *feel* fine
>about it.  I have no moral doubts whatsoever.".  Heart not head, you see.
>Conscience, not predicate logic.

I *feel* fine about it.  I have no moral doubts whatsoever.

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

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So since Kathi says she feels fine, are you now pro-choice?  Or is there
a reason why you would doubt her word?
 
Dan King
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34923 alt.flame:12542 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:371
From: kebbin@rotag.crud.mn.org (Kebbin Doohickey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: wise words, sort of (was Re: How to Oppose the Freedom of Choice Act)
Date: 4 Sep 92 00:46:00 GMT
Followup-To: talk.coerced.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Organization: Corrupt Megabucks Corporation, Data Operations Division

In article <1992Aug31.114922.1448@crd.ge.com>
        keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:

]it's not nice to accuse someone of something you
]haven't demonstrated, kebbie.

On the contrary, Mr. Keegan.  That is exactly what we teach our legal
staff to do, here at CMC/DOD, and it works out very nicely indeed.



-- 
Kebbin Doohickey                kebbin@rotag.crud.mn.org
Corrupt Megabucks Corporation   221 State Highway, Suite 0, Midwest, USA
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34947 alt.abortion.inequity:3496