HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: DearOldDoug has trouble identifying liars
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:34:08 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
>>> the term of pregnancy.

>> [-- rest of post including citations from Tushnet et al. deleted--]

> Why hasn't anyone addressed the documentation which I have
> provided showing that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-
> on-demand?  I've provided sources from the Alan Guttmacher
> Institute, an ACLU attorney who argued in PP v. Casey,
> a respected Georgetown University law professor, and
> an article written in the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties
> Law Review.  Not one person has refuted any of these sources.

There were about a half-dozen refutations of your sources last summer, Doug.
J. Greenfield in particular showed how the meaning of the texts you quoted
changed completely when restored to their contexts.

>> Every time you have posted your lies about Roe vs Wade, someone has posted 
>> the text that refute your lies.  Here we go again (caps emphasis mine):

[--RvW excerpt deleted--]

> Are you telling me that Kathyrn Kolbert, attorney for the ACLU
> in PP v. Casey, is a liar?

No, I am telling you that you are a liar.

> Is the Alan Guttmacher Institute a pack of liars?

No, I am telling you that you are a liar.

> Remember, these people support abortion rights, and they say that women
> can obtain abortions during the third trimester for very broadly defined
> ``health'' reasons.

Indeed.  It's been pointed out before that less than 100 abortions are
performed in the U.S. after the 24th week.  The source of that tidbit of
information is the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Are they a pack of liars, Doug?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
  "If God had meant for women to be doctors, He would have fixed it
      so men could have babies!" -- from the TV comedy 'Dream On'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Cochran's Restriction Considered Harmless (?)
Summary: Ask and ye shall receive, Kibbles... 
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.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 03:37:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.165951.3282@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.053040.18770@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>[This is Kibbles&Bits again...]

>>>Since you called it a >>LEGAL<< restriction, I just assumed you wanted it
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>embodied in law. Was I mistaken?
>>
>>Yes.  Maybe you should stop assuming things?
>
>Please identify my mistake clearly and skillfully, O Great Master of 
>Doubletalk, I beseech thee, so that I may achieve enlightenment. Please impart 
>to my so-less-learned mind how "legal restriction" fails to translate into 
>"restrictive legislation", so that I may come to know the error of my 
>wicked ways.

See the part I underlined right there?  The part that says, "I just assumed"?
That's where your mistake is.
--
=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???=
=You know, Colorado has a lot more to fear from a RadiKalFeministLesbianBitch =
=like me than I have to fear from either Colorado or "Them".  Carpe Diem! FWA!=
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yeah! Slick Willie Won! Yeah!
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:52:39 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:


>To all thoose celebrating Clinton's election,
Not me, that's for sure.

>The War is not over we have just lost a battle. We may have to wait
>for another 4 years before another one as important as this one comes up again
>but hopefully Bill will screw up and we get a pro-life presidant with a few
>morals again
A President's morals are immaterial.  What is material is whether or not he
wants to impose them on other people.  Such a person will not get my vote.
Even if I agree with them on those moral issues.

N.B.  I do not considder certain things like 'murder', 'rape' etc moral issues,
they are rights issues.  

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 07:42:34 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14l by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Nov2.195802.1194@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <roig6q0@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com
>   (C.J.  Silverio) writes: >
>>How does marijuana use create "social/personal difficulties"?
>
>The same way that any drug which impairs awareness and
>functionality.

In other words, it doesn't, in normal social/recreational use?

>Do some "weekend pot smokers" have families that are hurt
>by their drug use?

Some?  Probably.  Any significant number?  Probably not.

>The weekend is the only time many kids
>have to spend with their parents.  Might be nice if those
>parents were unimpaired for thoses times.

Neglect is a problem whether due to use of drugs, or because the parents
have social engagements, or because dad likes to spend his weekends
on the golf course.

And why do you assume the parents are stoned all weekend?  Perhaps they
wait until the kids are asleep before breaking out the joint.  Or the
martini shaker.  Or the whips and chains.

>Children and/or spouses aren't hurt by recreational substance
>use?

Generally speaking, no.

>>All your arguments for prohibition of marijuana apply with far
>>greater force to alcohol.  Alcohol has a higher abuse potential
>>than marijuana, and is far more damaging to its abusers.  Why
>>have you not called for the prohibition of alcohol?  Could it
>>be that the social costs of alcohol prohibition are worse than
>>the social costs of its legalization?  Why the double standard,
>>Overpeck?
>
>I think I've already answered this once.  Alcohol is too firmly
>entrenched in our culture.  "Calling" for its prohibition is,
>imo, quite futile.  But there is no double standard here.  I
>am well aware that alcohol is potentially far more dangerous
>than any number of illegal drugs.  Since, however, it is highly
>unlikely to be subject to prohibition again, I think it makes
>sense not to offer a panacea of legal substances - the problems
>caused by alcohol are quite sufficient for any one culture.

But perhaps if the safer drugs were more readily available, we wouldn't
have quite as many problems as we do when only the more dangerous drugs
are available.

>>|I see the social/interpersonal fallout created by such problems
>>|(specifically, drug abuse) on a regular basis.  You apparently
>>|do not.  Perhaps someday you will have an opportunity to re-
>>|evaluate your position.
>>
>>What social/interpersonal fallout?
>
>Do you think it's non-existent?

I've seen it from drug *abuse*, but the topic was recreational *use*.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cp7927@oktext.sbc.com (Caryn S. Prater)
Subject: Re: Victory is at hand for Pro-Choicers
Reply-To: cp7927@oktext.UUCP (Caryn S. Prater)
Organization: Southwestern Bell
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 04:38:57 GMT

In article <adams.720977803@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
>
>
>>All you Anti-abortionists might as well move onto a new pet project like
>>prayer in school or something.  The abortion issue is moot as a political
>>issue.  Clinton has won and will sign the Freedom of Choice Bill.  It's
>>finally over.  Thank God.
>
>Any bill can be repealed...you won't have pro-choice leaders forever.  The
>price of liberty is eternal vigilance...
>
> -Steve
>--
>  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
>                         -------------------
>   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
>   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558

Is this real live people or feti ( :-)) liberty we have to be
vigilant about?


Caryn

--
Nolite te bastardes carborunodorum
       Author unknown :-)
From: z3ij@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: today's lunch: domino's pizza and snapple.
Date: 13 Nov 92 13:31:44 EST
Distribution: talk
Organization: Cornell University

In article <markts.721352691@mcl>,
markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.) writes: 
> 
>  is eating dominos or drinking snapple directly
>  supporting the anti-choice movement?
> 
I am not sure about Sanpple, but I know tht the people who own Dominos (Th
chain) gives money to the pro-life cause.  Therefore, if they make more money,
they have more money to give. However,a local Dominos manager put an ad in
a discount book.  Get a dollar off a large pizza, and we will give a dollar to
Planned Parenthood.  So, the more pizzas Dominos makes with those cupons, the
more the pro-abortion-as-a-choice cause gets money.  I don't know if the 
manager gives part of his income in addition.   

>  why don't they rename those life ads: "life, what a
>  conservative, white choice."?

Gee, I guess you haven't seen all the ads, there are many non white children 
in those ads.  And I guess you never heard of a non-white pro-life advocate?
I will tell you about one.  My husband. He is Asian Indian, and he thinks life
is a beautiful choice, whether it is a white or non-white child.  Whether  
the childs parents are[C liberal or conservative.  And I agree with him.
 
> 
>  how many pro-lifers would feel the way they do if
>  their 15 year-old daughters got pregnant?

Well, I don't have any daughters yet.. However, I assume I would wish they had
waited until they were older, more mature and preferably married before they
became sexually active.  (And if the child was a product of rape or incest
, i would wish she hadn't been raped or abused.) But I would help her to the 
best of my ability through out her pregnancy, and let h er choice if she wanted
to raise the child (i would help her), or give it up for adoption (and again, 
I would help her). 


> 
>  how many pro-lifers would go through with a birth
>  if they were pregnant and barely making enough 
>  money to support themselves?

When my husband and I got married, and for the first year or so, we were barely
making enough money to support ourselves. And a couple of times I thought I 
was pregnant.  We welcomed the thought of a child with joy.  We were not
and still are not planning to have a  child until my husband finishes his  
college education.  Never did I ever consider not going through with the 
birth when I thought I was pregnant. 

> 
>  answers: no, i don't know-but they should, few
>  and fewer.
> 
Please, don't speak for me, or for anyone other than your self.  because your
views are not everyones.


>  tomorrow: why dominos pro-life stance is in conflict
>  with the way they drive.

Cute joke.  But you are assuming that all Dominos employed drivers are
pro-life.  I bet you offened some of them today.

> 
>  mark.


M.S.Hiranadani

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Who to listen to?
Keywords: Patrick makes no sense whatsoever!
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:36:30 GMT

In <1992Nov3.184833.8882@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>(Stuff deleted)
>>
>>Do you *work* to be this clueless, Simon?  Point out to me the proof that
>>I'm mad at you.  I doubt I'd be laughing at your drivel so much if I were
>>mad at you.  If you were teling a joke, why did you go to such lengths to
>>make it appear as anything *but* a joke?  You just concocted that story
>>after a couple of people gave you a wigging, and rightfully so.  To top it
>>off, you insinuate that I'm a Clinton supporter -- do you have any proof of
>>that?  I know I have proof I'm not -- check the Presidential totals for
>>Harris County Precinct 507 in the next couple of days and see how many votes
>>Andre Marrou got from there.  Mine will be one of them.  Yep, I'm a real
>>Clinton supporter, all right...or are you such a loyal Bush sheep that you
>>can't conceive of any opposition other than a Democrat?  You're the one
>>that's getting your knickers in a knot because people are rightly pointing
>>out that you're acting like an idiot.  That's your problem to deal with, not
>>mine...
>>
>>--PLH (don't blame me, I voted Libertarian)
>>
>Then I'd like to why, if you voted Libertarin, were you foaming at the
							 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>mouth upon seeing my jokes about Clinton.  When you attack someone
 ^^^^^
>for telling jokes about Clinton, it makes you look like a Clinton
>supporter.

Hmmm...Maybe Simon *was* half as obnoxious as PatricK in this response. :-)

But only half. :-)

And I'd like to compare the documentation of PatricK's alleged "foaming
at the mouth" with that of Simon's alleged "getting [his] knickers in
a knot" and "acting like an idiot".

I wonder which was more strident, and which was more justified.

Peter Nyikos



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: did DODie reject e.e.?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:29:44 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->>> A moderated talk.abortion newsgroup, independent from this newsgroup, 
->>> would help to deal with some of these questions.  Care to volunteer 
->>> as a moderator?  

->>how rude of you dodie! ms. bartley volunteered the last
->>time you asked this question. i don't believe i ever
->>saw a reply from you on her kind offer. did you reply
->>dodie?

->Since you oppose the creation of a moderated abortion newsgroup,
->which would not allow you to harass Ms. Bartley or any other
->woman, what do you care?  

i wanted to see if you would have the courage to admit
that you rejected her offer and the honesty to admit
whether or not you had even given her the courtesy of a reply.

did you reply to her offer, dodie?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  2 Nov 92 20:08:21 GMT

In <92301.124028ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:

>In article <1992Oct25.233635.27082@rotag.mi.org> Kebbie "retracts":
>>In article <92297.234253ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>>>Kebbie doing his Richard Nixon impression writes
>>>in article <1992Oct18.223312.29329@rotag.mi.org>

>>>>I HAVE NEVER REPEAT *NEVER* ARGUED FOR LEGISLATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON
>>>>ABORTION!!!!
>>>
>>>Obviously Kebbie hasn't figured out yet that there
>>>are people who read what is written and discard
>>>whatever label the writer tries to affix to oneself.

>>Obviously Ms. Birmingham has not seen my subsequent global retraction of all
>>possible pro-abortion-restriction statements.

>Actually I haven't and as I said, dear boy, I base my opinions
>on what I read.  The fact that you felt compelled to post a
>"global retraction" of your own statments speaks volumes, imo.

"volumes"?  I can only get a two-liner: 
"Darcy implies he has been misunderstood and posted the global `retraction'
to clear up any possible misunderstandings."

>>Obviously Ms. Birmingham treats "Kevin Darcy supports abortion restrictions"
>>as an axiom, rather than as a hypothesis to be tested via diligent inquiry
>>into the facts, and feels free to interpret anything and everything she
>>wishes as demonstrating the validity of her arbitrarily-chosen axiom.

>Really dear, is this similar to you declaring that I am a
>"radical extremist"?

>>Only Extremists such as yourself can

>You of course have proof that I am an "Extremist"
>don't you Kebbie?  Please post it.

Well, you did say: 

|>>You can not force a
|>>fetus weighing 6lbs and up, through the vaginal opening
|>>without causing tearing and subsequent scaring.

I asked you about a week ago whether you really meant this
to apply to all women, without exceptions.  I haven't seen
a reply.  In the absence of a reply, I take your words at
face value.  They are extremist, and also false, because
I have counterexamples, two of them involving my own wife.

>Let's not forget to add, the ability to recognize the
>person incapable of sticking with a position and who bows in
>whatever direction the wind happens to be blowing. In this
>area Kebbie, my lad, you have become an excellent weather vane.

I'm curious to see how strongly you stick to your above statement,
Ms. Birmingham.

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.child-support,soc.women
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Speaking of Sailors....
Followup-To:  soc.singles,alt.sex
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:57:29 GMT

nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:

] In article <s6ougqc@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
] 
] >In article <1992Nov7.140743.24042@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com writes:
] >|(raising my hand) Uhm, I don't get it either.  Aren't they
] >|both covered under freedom of speech?
] >|confused in the back row,
] >|Rich Soyack
] 
] >I suggest you contact your company's human resources people &
] >ask them for some information about sexual harassment in the
] >workplace.
] 
] What is this about? I can assure you that I have never sexually harassed 
] any men at work. Perhaps that is what is reprehensible about my attitude?


I do so love both ends of this pissing match.

Folks like to faint in a Dead Heat over the fact that
I am too stoopid to know that I can not speak like a
sailor when there are those of the 'fair sex' about.....


Silly Me. 

To me, being anyone but drieux IS a SIN,
and to mitigate it merely as there are
men in the room is STOOPID.

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Choice, what a beautiful life....!!
Date: 6 Nov 1992 18:11:30 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


   Let us not forget HOORAY FOR MARYLAND!!!!!!!

-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47783 soc.motss:47318
From: laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.motss
Subject: Re: too controversial for NBC
Date: 12 Nov 92 13:29:12 GMT
Reply-To: laura@hoptoad.UUCP (God)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco

>My question is, what criterion makes a topic unacceptable?  That the
>issue is multifaceted?  That the differing sides are passionate with
>their arguments?  That the religious right is involved?

No such high moral concern.

The networks are scared s-less that they won't make money on
the shows because the advertisers won't buy advertising.
They don't want `unacceptable' -- any sort, because people
who are offended boycott products and companies who bought
advertising time while the `unacceptable' episode ran.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Who owns sperm?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 17:53:46 GMT

In article <1e117hINN3oa@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1bhi7lINN9bu@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>In article <Bw42t5.8L5@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>>Ah.  I see.  An *excellent* argument for not leaving one's personal property
>>>(one's sperm) lying about outside of the realm of one's control.  Now, if
>>>*you* can think of a way to allow a man to repossess sperm HE left lying
>>>about, I'll support you in it.
>
>>If I you invite me to your house, and I drop my wallet there, is it yours?
>
>>The property of invited guests does not automatically
>>become the property of the host simply because physical contact is lost.
>>If you're going to cite a legal principle, please cite one that EXISTS.
>
>Ah, but it does become the property of the finder if it remains unclaimed
>for a period of time (usually 30-90 days).  Extrapolating from this legal
>principal, I suggest that if the man has been out of the loop (with regards
>to the woman's pregnancy) for a comensureate period of time, then he
>has forfeitted any rights to control or influence the outcome of the 
>pregnancy.

I believe you'll find that, in the case of lost property, where the owner (or
a legal representative of the owner) can be found and communicated with, 
notification is necessary before the "clock" can start running on appropriating
the unclaimed property. So if she doesn't TELL her lover that she intends to
assume ownership of his sperm, it's not hers.

Besides, as explained in another post, I don't think this "property" analogy 
really gets us anywhere. Either the sperm remains HIS, in which case he can
reclaim it, or it becomes HERS, in which case he's not responsible for any
mischief that "her" sperm gets into, i.e. conception. In neither case, does 
the result match the current paternity child-support status quo.

								- Kevin
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 5 Nov 1992 23:47:22 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

(deleted lots of good references)

>   In short, Roe and Doe give the woman (1) a privacy interest that
>   outweighs any rights which may be asserted on behalf of the fetus
>   up to the point of viability, and (2) a broadly defined health
>   interest which prevails over any interest asserted on behalf of
>   the fetus throughout the term of pregnancy."


Yup.  Roe v. Wade gave *doctors* a lot of authority in determining 
wheter a late-term pregnancy could be aborted.

							--  Michal

Newsgroups: talk.abortion