HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:19:01 GMT

In <1992Aug27.151157.180@pwcs.stpaul.gov> 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.

As to criticizing the ERA, here is what the Willkes wrote about it,
citing D. Johnston, "Aborting the ERA," _American Politics_, May 1987,
pp. 19-21.  Your comments appreciated.

	When the 1983 ERA was introduced, National Right-to-Life asked
	Congress to attach the following abortion neutralizing clause:
	
	   "Nothing in this Article shall be construed to grant or
	secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof."
	
	If this had been attached, the ERA would have easily passed by the
	required two-thirds vote in the U. S. House of Representatives.
	The radical feminist groups, however, would have none of it.
	They demanded and got a vote on the unamended original wording --
	and lost by six votes on November 15, 1983.  Without question,
	the ERA was defeated on the horns of the abortion issue.

	Since the ACLU's victory in the 1987 Connecticut case, the 
	final nail has probably been driven into the ERA coffin.  By this
	new, obvious, and undeniable link to abortion, "the ACLU has 
	erected a political obstacle that backers of the amendment
	will find insurmountable."

--Dr. and Mrs. J. C. Willke, _Abortion Questions and Answers_, 1990
edition, p. 277.

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 04:24:30 GMT

frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de () writes:

>By actually conceiving, I would imagine that you are suddenly 
>in a world of shit, which is not generally the case when 
>deciding not to conceive. 

I've heard pregnancy described in many ways.  But I do believe
that the term "a world of shit" is a new one even for me.

>You are placed in the position of *having* to make the 
>decision, PDQ.  

Nonsense, unless you are talking about "when you choose not to
choose, you have chosen".  The worls is full of women who have
done absolutely nothing about their pregnancies until the onset
of labor.  Compared to that, abortion is a very responsible
action.

    [delete, delete]

>I also wonder, what if it (abortion) *is* wrong?   You
>know, suppose the z/e/f turned out to be a person all
>along.   Suppose (whisper it) YOU GOT IT WRONG!  AGAIN!
>Suppose that someone up there was mighty pissed off about 
>all this pro-choicing.  Where would that leave us?  What
>would that do to the woman who decided to abort?  And
>finally, is that what is in fact happening?

<whisper>  Guess what.  What if it turns out that there IS
no such thing as a "just war"?  What if, actually, EVERY
WAR _IS_ WRONG?  Boy, I guess Schwartzkopf will just be in
a WORLD of shit, huh?

>Nevertheless, it is devoutly to be wished that people
>who think that abortion is always "over and done with" are
>not on the front line counselling women who are considering
>abortion.  Wouldn't you say?    

Why would anyone say this?  Do you want people who have 
serious DOUBTS about abortion counseling women?  Why is
this any better?  So that we can be sure that the counselor
communicates his/her moral spin on the issue, thus CAUSING
guilt where none may otherwise have existed?

>Safe, legal, early and *rare*
>(approximately the original posters .sig, from memory) is not 
>an unreasonable manifesto.

It's reasonable if the reason that it's rare is because there
are virtually no unwanted pregnancies, due to some Super 
Contraceptive not yet available.  It's not reasonable if the
reason it's rare is because women who _want_ abortions are
routinely intimidated into carrying to term.


>Frank O'Dwyer

                   -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Are you trying to threaten me, little man? (Was: Badges...)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 23:37:40 GMT

In article <nyikos.715464590@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep1.020959.10514@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>

[Lots deleted...]

>
>I don't have absolute right to control my own body.  I don't have the
>right, for example, to drive it away from an accident I've been involved
>in without stopping to render assistance.  To take a more traditional

Sure you do, Peter.  It may be illegal, but as long as you can move your
body, you have the *right* to do whatever you want to with it.  It might
be kindof hard if you're handcuffed in a police car, but...

>example, I don't have the right to inject heroin into it.

Sure you do.

>
>On the flip side, I would give a woman every right to control her own
>body, but a fetus is not part of her body and the right does not extend
>to controlling it.   

And you wonder why people think you're a mysognist?

>
>As Portia said in The Merchant of Venice, Shylock
>had the right to his pound of flesh, but not to one drop of blood.
>
>
>>I'll volunteer to be the "doer" to Peter's body.  If you'd like some of my
>>qualifications, see if you can find a post titled "You Asked For It!", where
>>I describe some of the slight correlations between fisting and giving birth.
>
>If you are trying to gross me out, you'll have to try a lot harder than
>this.  In fact, I don't think it can be done on talk.abortion without
>calling the wrath of network censors on your head and bringing on pressure

Are you trying to threaten me, little man?  You might want to study the
net.history of t.a for the last year or so, and see just what passes as
"allowable" here...

>to turn talk.abortion into a moderated newsgroup, which is something none
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This gets my vote for "Stupidest sentence fragment of the month".

>of us wants.  [There has been some talk of creating a moderated abortion 
>newsgroup, but that does not entail doing away with this one.]
>
>Of course, I can't stop you from e-mailing me...

Sorry, honey.  I don't do e-mail.  Or Windows.

Rumor has it you've done Jeff Stryker, though...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=I am not "pro-life"... - Doug Holtsinger in article                          =
=                                          <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu>   =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: List of unsubstantiated accusations by Susan Garvin
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 20:03:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>List of unsubstantiated accusations by Susan Garvin against me:

Without commenting on the veracity of Mr. Holtsinger's accusations,
I will merely note that they are all unsubstantiated by either quotes 
or references.  Perhaps Mr. Holtsinger would care to try for a more 
compelling approach to making his case?

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:29:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.041628.25063@rotag.mi.org> 
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:

>>> 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.

> Did Linda consider any other possibilities, e.g. creating a SEPARATE
> group for the purpose? Of course not. She's locked into FLAME_MODE=ON.
> Her post attempted to slam shut any and all windows of opportunity for a 
> useful, valuable discussion. 

Hmm, maybe we should create a moderated newsgroup for discussing
the proposed talk.abortion moderated newsgroup? :-)

> I support the idea of a moderated group. Even more so after Linda's post than 
> I did before.

Would you be willing to serve as a moderator? 

>							- Kevin


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:42:44 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep2.071341.3020@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan gar
>vin) writes:

>>caught my attention was a claim that Gilda Radner's ovarian
>>cancer was caused by an abortion.

>The text of the article, taken directly form the _Atlanta Constitution_
>review of Gilda Radner's autobiography:

	 "Even before Gilda Radner was diagnosed with cancer,
     she had an abortion, became bulimic while on `Saturday
     Night Live', tried desperately to get pregnant after
     marrying Gene Wilder, only to have two miscarriages, and
     suffered from recurring bowel problems, all written about
     in explicit detail."
	 "Then in 1986, she was told she had ovarian cancer.
     She had a hysterectomy, a grapefruit-sized tumor was
     removed, and months of grueling chemotherapy and radiation
     therapy began."

>The only support for Susan's claim comes from the clumsily worded
>title itself: _Actress's Cancer Points to Abortion Complications_.
>Not clear even which direction the cause-effect relationship, if any, is
>supposed to run.

Peter, at least you admit the title is clumsy. What did abortion, or its
"complications" have to do with her cancer? The fact that she had both
relates nothing, and it sounds like a scare tactic to me using admittedly
clumsy innuendoes to put the FearOfCancer into the pregnant woman seeking
an abortion. Do you need all this spelled out for you?

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 04:20:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.012112.2026@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

#No state may enact legislation which requires a physician 
#to remove a viable fetus alive, because it would be unconstitutional 
#under Roe.  

That's not true either, DOD.  Try reading Roe.

Susan
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: KILLfile created to prevent flamewar
Date: 2 Sep 92 00:16:47 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <92240.072758ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes:
>In article <p2flip8@fido.asd.sgi.com> C.J. Silverio says:
>
>>Or are you just reflexively flaming, and helping Keegan play his
>>one-note samba?
>
>Would you care to point to where in my post I was
>flaming, Ms. Silverio?  

Denial is the first stage.

>>Eric R tells me that The Obsessive Archivist
>>has been flaming me, despite knowing that he's well-esconced in
>>my killfile.
>
>Ms. Silverio why have you raised the spectre of
>Mr. Keegan?  No where in the post you are
>responding to do I refer to the man.  Considering
>your repeated references to your killfiling him,
>this smacks of obsession on your part.
>
>>If you're going to do his dirty work for him,
>
>Ms. Silverio get something straight, I don't post for
>anyone but myself and I certainly do not do the
>"dirty work" of some man.  

Then why have you faithfully shown up, guns blazing, every time Little
Jimmy gets his organs bruised in yet another net.brawl? Why did I catch you 
publically lavishing compliments on him just prior to our first confrontation 
("sensitive", "intelligent"), like some goddamned Mutual Admiration Society? 
Why did you refer to the "pleasure of having met the man in person"?

If you're _not_ a Keegan toady, you've certainly been ACTING the part, Linda.

>This is the second time
>I have seen you accuse a woman in this newsgroup of
>somehow being under Mr. Keegan's control.  You
>were wrong in Ms. Demitrio's case, just as you
>are wrong in mine.  

It was never demonstrated that CJ was wrong in that case, either. Are
you just blatantly asserting that, too?

>However I do suggest you reconsider implying that
>my opinions, or any woman's, are under the control
>of some man in or out of this newsgroup.  To some
>women, this attitude is very offensive.

To some women, and men, the tendency for other folks to resort to implications
of sexism without first considering other more obvious explanations, is
equally, if not more offensive. In this case, the possibility that your
actions are strongly influenced by a dishonest, puerile, spineless, 
repetitive little twerp is probably much more influential than the mere
fact that the dishonest, puerile, spineless, repetitive little twerp is of 
the male gender. Occam's Razor, Linda, Occam's Razor -- not _every_ 
conflict between a man and a woman is a Grand Battle of the Sexes.

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.discrimination
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: All discrimination is not equal -- or wrong
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 22:03:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.174525.8155@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu 
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:

[I wound up deleting it all.  Just thought I'd keep Doug Holtsinger's
name in here.]

Gee, Doug, I thought you were upset at the term, but I guess not.
Guess you're blown out at who uses it and in what tone.  It's
perfectly ok, I noticed, for people like you to use it...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
           Remember, behind most silver linings is a cloud...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:26:55 GMT

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
# bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
# >Would you also file child abuse/neglect charges against
# >your wife if she were to smoke, take drugs or drink during
# >pregnancy?
# 
# Yes.

``Honey, don't you think that's a bit much nutmeg?  I mean, it could
hurt the baby.''

``Fuck off, Nigel.''

``Very well, Aphasia.  You've left me no choice but to call the
Pregnancy Squad.  Are you sure you won't reconsider?''


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

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Keywords: Reinforcements
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:44:40 GMT

In article <s-vy1rg@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

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

>> But this doesn't change the fact that the Constitution does not
>> give anyone the unlimited right to kill other human beings.  The  
>> states are free to pass laws restricting the use of deadly force,
>> for example.  

> The states are also free to pass laws restricting abortion.

The states are free to pass laws restricting abortion only to the 
extent permitted by Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court rulings. 
There are no Supreme Court rulings that I am aware of which limit
the state's power to pass laws restricting the use of deadly force.

>                           -rocker


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Observations
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 05:06:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep03.215609.14780@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <Bu09ut.Es5@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

Referring to "enforce" defined as "strengthen":
>> In which case, it is natural to conclude that a law permitting abortion
>> "enforces" the belief that fetuses are not persons/children/human-lives.
>
>Not really, because it's a religious belief.  For example,
>
>> And yes, our laws do "enforce" (to a much lesser extent) the belief
>> that killing cattle is not wrong.
>
>Do you really believe that someone who believes cattle to be holy changes
>their mind because it's legal here?  I don't; I think they're more likely
>to see those who eat steak as sinners.

I don't have any basis for making such a judgement.  One example that
does come to mind is that eating pork is legal; if it were illegal,
perhaps fewer Jewish people would eat pork.  Hence, the legality
of eating pork does tend to strengthen the belief that eating pork
is not immoral/unholy/sinful.  (This strays a bit, since it's not 
that pigs are holy but that eating them is religiously banned.)

And, beliefs regarding abortion are not necessarily religious.
My beliefs regarding abortion are certainly not; they arise from
consideration of morals, philosophical principles of justice and equity, 
pragmatism, and a bit of scientific experience (research on reproduction).

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: :) mcbeanb saved by miraculous bit of whining
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 1 Sep 92 12:57:25 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

     Well it turns out that my whining and pleading worked out just
peachy keen, and I have my Brandon account for at least another
semester!  Thanks for all the offers of help, they are truly
appreciated.  Only problem is I began to delve into an account
at nyx.cs.du.edu, and realized how much more news is received there,
and at such a faster rate.  Yet reading news on this account is
so much more convenient than the rn newsreader on nyx (how confusing
for a newbie!).  Such terrible dilemmas I face!
     Seey'all on usenetland

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca  -  bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu
(my my, do I have to worry about a .sig file now????)
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Abortion" on a not-pregnant woman
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:57:42 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <nyikos.715045629@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>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.

What I find highly offensive about this little tale is that there are a 
bunch of serious accusations without a shred of evidence, and you're 
asking us to swallow it whole.

>	"One woman came to the clinic forcing her daughter [...]
First of all, a forced abortion is just as heinous as forced childbirth.

> [fetus falls into toilet]
Well, I'm confused.  Was the procedure done on her and this is what happened?
If that is true, this is a malpractice case.  Keep in mind that if someone
screws up a triple bypass, the solution is to go after the doctor and not
make heart surgery illegal.
If it was that she miscarried, she would have miscarried anywhere!
The whole gloss-over nature of this tale leads me to believe that this is
spun out of whole cloth.

> [...She doesn't want to see abortion results because she's beginnin' to
>  See The Light[tm] ... she becomes chemically dependent because of Satan's
>  Work... she gets an abortion when she isn't pregnant, which leads to PID]

Oh, honey, given this level of incompetence, you have a *definite* case
for malpractice.  Go get 'em!  Oh, no evidence?  I guess she didn't sue 'em,
huh?  Why is that?  Could it maybe be that she made the whole thing up to
please her new pal Lord Jesus?  Kinda like the "revelations" people have of
being involved in Satanic rituals with their parents long ago even though 
the evidence says something completely different?

Give me a break.  I'm surprised she didn't say that the doctors would take
the discarded fetuses' blood to scrawl pentagrams on the parking lot during
Satanic orgies on Halloween with Elvis.

--Teddi
----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Keywords: Reinforcements
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 01:59:35 GMT

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

>In article <adams.714926757@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

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

>>> Before Roe v. Wade was handed down, there was never any constitutional
>>> right to kill a member of the human species.  
>>
>> What you don't seem to understand is that the Constitution does NOT give
>> rights.  The Constitution was designed as a document that was to limit
>> government.  It assigned a LIMITED set of powers to the government and that
>> was it.

>Yes, the Constitution was designed to limit the powers of the Federal 
>government.  However it was not designed to limit the power of the
>states, except as specified in the Bill of Rights. The states were
>still free to enact legislation which was not prohibited by the
>Constitution. 

>Roe v. Wade took away most of the state's power to regulate abortion,
>and in the process, it created a constitutional right to kill certain
>members of the human species.  An unquestioned right to kill human 
>beings is a very dangerous concept, in my opinion. 

The Civil War was fought over the issue of "State's Rights" and the
proponents of strong federal government won.  Roe was just another in the
long list of federal laws/regulations that took away states' power.  "One
man one vote"  took away a state's right to have a perfectly legal (IMHO)
form of representation, one used by even the federal govt.

Roe fits that category better.  The Bill of Rights had nothing to do with
the states when it was adopted....

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion