HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Pro-Life? (was Re: Hypocrites?)
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:02:48 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <1992Aug11.212039.7622@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <BsMrFu.n2H@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> 
>wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>
>> Show me a woman who *intentionally* got pregnant using
>> artificial insemination and then wanted an abortion for
>> reasons of "changed circumstances".  
>
>A woman who intentionally gets pregnant using artificial
>insemination might want an abortion after she discovers
>that the developing child has Down's syndrome. Rape and
>incest exceptions for abortion would not apply here, so 
>your argument that these exceptions are intended to
>punish women for having sex doesn't have any support. 

Yes, it does. If abortion is murder, then allowing abortion in cases of
rape or incest doesn't make sense. If abortion is less than murder, what
is wrong with it? Banning abortion for spurios reasons certainly
qualifies for punishing sexually active women in *my* book.

[...]


-- 
==========================================================================
That which is necessary is never evil. If an evil seems necessary, look
to your context; that's where its root lies.  - Charles Perez
==========================================================================
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Putting out the fire, sort of
Summary: Now, how do we put out Doug?!?
Date: 19 Aug 1992 19:57:37 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Patrick, and none but.

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

Believe it all you want.  You've seen my conditions for that happening -- he
can take it or leave it.  I suspect he doesn't have the balls to take it.

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


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

            * Hit any key to continue, or any other key to quit. *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Fetal Independence
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 22:24:07 GMT

In article <5733@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> 
tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

> OK, Doug, then answer me this.  What sort of risk are you comfortable with
> inflicting on the woman?

I'm not interested in inflicting a risk on anyone.  Every person who
engages in sexual intercourse increases their risk of contracting a
sexually-transmitted disease.  An ectopic (tubal) pregnancy can kill 
a woman early in pregnancy.  Abortions can sometimes be fatal.  If 
people don't want to take these risks, then they can avoid sexual 
intercourse.  There are plenty of safer ways to please a partner. 

>--Teddi


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Why do they call themselves "pro-life"?
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:44:40 GMT

From article <14252@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, by pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch):
> 
> The Republican party now has as one of their priorities banning ALL
> abortions. As about 1% of all pregnancies in the US are ectopic, this
> would sentence millions of women to a painful and pointless death.
> 
> PLEASE correct me if this is a mis-reading of the Republican platform! 
> 
> I am not posting to inflame (plenty of that goes on in this newsgroup 
> without me :-), I'm trying to make sure of the exact position of the 
> Republican party.
> 
> Paula Burch

Well then, your understanding of the Republican platform is wrong.
The Republican platform would ban all abortion BUT that required to
save the life of the mother.  It doesn't make earthly sense to let them
both die when you can save at least one of them.

Suzanne Forgach
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31430 alt.birthright:384
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting)
Date: 13 Aug 92 01:59:53 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


In article <1992Aug12.215027.1814@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>Dan King and Drieux were only two
>whose mail I was shown by the system admins. Who typed 'd' right after
>that, while laughing at them. It was getting on the verge of the
>downright irritating because of the bogus prank by Scott
>Humphrey/Roby, which was being picked up by Drieux and Dan King (who
>first proved to the world that yes, there is life on Mars).

Not that this should come as a big shock to anyone that has read
talk.abortion for more than a few posts by Chaney, but Chaney cross
posted this to another group, so I guess I should respond.

In the paragraph above, Chaney is lying.  I have not ever sent any mail
regarding the little guy to any system administrator.  If his parents
system administrator, I think his name was Smith, wants to get in touch
with me, I'm a very easy person to get hold of.

>BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Spousal (or father) notification (was Re: Stranded on an Island)
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:30:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.212940.3482@colorado.edu> atkeson@spot.Colorado.EDU (L. Atkeson) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug7.230624.23025@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> buckc@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Carolyn Buck-Gengler) writes:
>>>
>>>In article <1992Jul30.022303.2389@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:

[discussion of father-notification laws]

[L. Atkeson]
>Although I hope most women would tell their spouses about their decision
>to abort a fetus I would not want the govt mandating such disclosures.
>If a woman does not want to tell a man about the abortion there may be
>good reason for her decision.  It seems to me that some matters need
>to be left to individual discretion, the govt can't and imho should not
>be responsible for defining how married couples relate.

If marriage were purely an interpersonal relationship, with no
intervention by government, that would be fine.

But government defines and regulates marriage very strongly.
An interpersonal relationship can include two or more members of any sex,
but marriage cannot.  A private interpersonal relationship is not usually
subject to liabilities (excepting common-LAW marriage) as marriage is.

. As long as marriage is LEGALLY defined (implicitly or explicitly)
  with the assumed goals of sex, reproduction, exclusivity, and mutual
  support (eg. each party has an interest in "investments" made in the other)
  then each party has the right to full information in regard to these
  concerns.  (This motivates HUSBAND notification.)

. As long as men are LEGALLY responsible and liable for 
  unwanted children or for wanted but noncustodial children, 
  -- namely for the consequences of the abortion choice made by the woman --
  they have a right to full information.  (This motivates the related
  but distinct issue of FATHER notification.)


>	BTW I'm not so sure that procreation is one of the fundamental
>motivations for marriage.  It is for some people, but I know many 
>couples who aren't concerned about that factor at all whether or not
>it has some legal position.

Pretty obvious, and I agree.  You're talking about interpersonal
relationships, and I'm talking about interpersonal contracts 
imposed by default by our current laws.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu           pro-pro  anti-anti  anti-pro-anti  anti-anti-pro
From: ursic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 18 Aug 92 11:21:45 EST

In article <1992Aug18.045408.10743@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, c60a-zg@volga.Berkele
y.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
> At least you would agree that the unborn needs to be protected in the
> middle and late terms.  
> 
> But one question I pose to you is this: When can you say a "fertilized
> ovum" becomes human?  At what point can you say this person becomes human?
 
Let's play the stupid question game! Here are some for you.

1) Are you human or are you Martin?
2) When did you become human?
3) When did you become Martin?

Short, brief answers only, please. - J.J.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Keywords: Cough. Cough. Cough Man.
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:17:55 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Aug16.191634.6739@ncsu.edu>, Doug Holtsinger writes:

>> The fetus couldn't care less if it was aborted or not.

> An infant couldn't care less if it was killed or not.

How pathetic.  Is this the type of crap reasoning you use to support
your position?

An infant could be put up for adoption.  Try again.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

"In a study of schoolboys, an educator discovered a correlation between size
 of feet and quality of handwriting.  The boys with the larger feet were,
 on the average, older."        Wallis & Roberts, _The Nature of Statistics_
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Followup-To: talk.abortion,misc.test
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:00:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.133659.26279@pwcs.stpaul.gov> 
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

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

>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

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

>>>> [.. out of context quote deleted ..]

>>> How does it feel being the target of your own tactics?

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

> What about Bill Clinton?  


"Take responsibility for your children, or we will force you to do it."
 -- Bill Clinton, speaking at the Democratic National Convention


Bill Clinton obviously supports laws which would force parents 
to take responsibility for their children.  Every rational person
knows what he means by the word ``children''.  Obviously, you
don't.  


> Adrienne Regard?  

 "For some of us, abortion on demand *is* no more serious than demanding a
  hamburger."
   -- Adrienne Regard


Adrienne Regard hasn't even complained about my quote.  Complain to
her if you don't like that quote.
 

> The Supreme Court?

Please demonstrate that I've quoted any Supreme Court decision 
out of context.  If you can't, then I'm going to ask for an apology.
 

>Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
>"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger

I've quoted entire sentences, you haven't.  Now who's being intentionally
malicious?  You are.

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

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31858 alt.flame:12095
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: APOLOGY (another one)
Date: 15 Aug 92 21:19:30 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

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
-> >(Suzanne Forgach) writes:
-> >>Well, I apologize to Patrick Humphrey for making
-> >>my "much as you'd like to" remark, when he said
-> >>his wife wouldn't let him forget their
-> >>anniversary.  I'm sorry about that.
-> >
-> >See this, Kevin?  _This_ is what an apology is
-> >supposed to look like.
-> 
-> Shorter than mine, you mean?

sincere. but you'd know nothing of that so your
confusion is excused.



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 22 Aug 92 11:58:38 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug21.192541.10624@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article <23919@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, by bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense):
>> In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

[...]

>>>You loose.  Just by not using your head.
>> 
>> I see you saying this often, yet you never seem to win any points. Ok,
>> here are some cases where putting the fetus to death is justified. It
>> is discovered in the third-tri that the fetus is anencephalic, or that
>> the fetus is missing a liver, or that there appear to be multiple defects,
>> as in poor or miising bone growth, open spine, missing limbs, and/or
>> internal defects such as lack of an esophagus/stomach/intestines, all
>> of which can cause the fetus upon birth, to die shortly thereafter.
>> I only state these, as they are enough to refute your statement.
> 
> Obviously Ron, you've just refuted yourself, since if the baby is going
> to die anyway due to some defect, there is no reason whatsoever to put it
> to death!

What about the child which is produced?  Even if s/he dies shortly thereafter
it will suffer.  The family will have to endure his/her ensuing death.
Someone has to pay the extra bills.  It isn't fun.  My second cousin
Kirk was born with a terrible defect which was supposed to allow him
less than a year to live.  He is constantly in excruciating pain, is
always drowned in pain killers, more than enough to kill a child, but I
believe he has produced some sort of resistance.  My cousin and her family
still visit him, even though he can be nothing more than a vegetable,
and if he's anything more than that then his hell is all that much worse.
He requires the attention and time of hospital staff to keep comfortable.
He just sits and drools.  I doubt he could think with the mix of pain
and drugs.  

Kirk is three years old now.  He still hasn't died.  Had his parents
known of this defect beforehand, I am positive they would rather have
aborted him than to put everyone, especially Kirk, through this certain 
hell.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:32:28 GMT

dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>> john@anasazi.com writes:

>>> Hmmm... that's odd. I heard a PRO-CHOICE advocate state that 1% of
>>> abortions in the US are in the 3rd trimester. These must be very
>>> busy and rich doctors.

What's wrong with being rich and busy?  Are doctors supposed to live in
garrets and sip broth?

Seriously, 3rd trimester abortions are riskier and more expensive.  I've
heard that there are only 2-3 doctors in the U.S. who perform 3rd trimester
abortions.  Considering that less than 100 abortions are performed after
the 28th (?) week, there's not enough patients to keep 3 doctors in broth,
I'm afraid.

>> That's *less* than 1%.  

> The annual number of abortions performed at 21 weeks and after tends
> to number in the thousands.  Percentages always make the numbers look 
> smaller than people might realize.  That's because there are millions
> of abortions performed every year.

1.6 million is a bit less than 'millions.'  This phrase, 'tends to number
in the thousands,' seems pretty slippery.  Care to give us a more exact
number?

> And it's not clear what Ms. Garvin defines as "third trimester". The 
> definition of third trimester varies; some put it at 28 weeks, others 
> at 24 weeks.

John was asking about 3rd trimester abortions.  In the range of numbers
24 to 28, where is 21 placed?

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Bush and his granddaughter
Date: 14 Aug 92 01:12:09 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

After telling a reporter that he would support his granddaughter after
she made what he considers the morally wrong choice to abort her
fetus, George Bush was asked if he considered abortion a woman's
choice.  His answer is astounding considering his support of a
Constitutional ban on all abortions except in cases of rape, incest,
or danger to the life of the mother: "Of course, it's her a woman's, a
woman's choice.  Who else's choice would it be?"

Excuse me, GHWB, but you seem to be advocating a position quite
different than your previously officially stated position.  If
abortion is a woman's choice, then we don't need that Constitutional
ban on abortion.  I'm surprised to find the President speaking as if
he is in agreement with the pro-choice position; nonetheless, I have
no plans to break my lifetime record of never having voted Republican.

SJM
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: APOLOGY (another one)
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:04:40 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>Well, I apologize to Patrick Humphrey for making my "much as you'd like to"
>remark, when he said his wife wouldn't let him forget their anniversary.
>I'm sorry about that.

Geez.  Rather impressive, Suzanne.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:06:21 CDT


In article <1992Aug11.182610.2104@brandonu.ca>, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> In article <1992Aug11.144923.40319@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> > In  <9779@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>  brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:
> >> In <1992Aug10.134616.27853@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
> >>
> >> >Trying to draw a bright line at
> >> >conception is just as arbitrary as a line at viability or birth.
> >>
> >> Birth isn't arbitrary, just wrong.
> > 
> > Truth by Blatant Assertion.
> 
> Isn't rja making reference to the silly thought of allowing late
> third trimester abortions (without special circumstances like the baby
> pulling a knife as he begins poking his head out)?

Huh?  (I'm not sure how to respond 'cause I'm not sure what you're saying.)

>                                                      Isn't it
> obvious that saying you can kill a baby 1 minute before birth, but not
> a millisecond after just sort of stupid (or at least barbaric imo)?

My point is that calling the killing of a fertilized egg a second after
conception "murder" while *not* calling the killing of the egg & sperm
a second before conception "murder" is just as arbitrary as calling the 
killing of a baby a second after birth "murder" while *not* calling the 
killing of the baby a second before birth "murder".  IMHO, both are 
arbitrary (at least based on biology) and wrong.

> Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
> 
> PS So what if it's truth by blatant assertion?  It's still truth.

Is not... Is too... Is not... Is too... Is not... Is too... Is not... Is too... 

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: More character assassination 
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:15:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.124614.6376@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

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

>> smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
 
>>> DOD is pursuing the strategy of repeating a lie more frequently as it
>>> is challenged.  

>> Pro-aborts are pursuing the strategy of character assassination. 

> When you lie, 

Name one instance.

> quote out of context, 

Name one instance.

> or edit quotes in a deceptive fashion

Name one instance.


Once and for all, put up or shut up.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Minutes of ba.t.a committee meeting
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world  
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:36:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.182641.23717@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.164656.7056@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug10.142355.21787@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>Nice to know that I'm the subject of attention (translation: worry,
>>concern) in the pro-abort camp. 
>Uh, no. Scorn, amusement.

And a memorial service for Dan Bredy's Internet access, no doubt. 

We'll remember that whining you personally did about Dan Bredy being
lawfully reported for his violation of Kodak's rules, and then your
roaring silence when people were reporting me for what I *didn't* do..

>>He will also think for food. It'll be his greatest feat. 
>This would make more sense if you included `
>"I will hack Unix for food." which is the last line of my .sig.
>
>As I've just graduated from the .edu ranks myself(I.e. I no longer
>attend Yale. They just let me use their machines) I'm a little
>reluctant to make fun of those who still are. However, allow me
>to point out that I, unlike you, seem to have convinced someone
>that I can think enough that they will hire me. (Here's a clue:
>It's a joke, son. I AM paid to hack Unix.)

NOT. I can move on from where I work now (which means you're doubly
wrong because I am already hired, selling and working with CPU's), to
Egghead Software, a local store, and begin selling for higher wages &
komish. And I'm months away from being a viable $35/hr computer
consultant. I could do that already if all I did was help people with
UNIX. I may not be as good at it as you, but I already write workable
and worthwhile programs on UNIX (BSD). Heck, I already help people
with it, so who knows? In a year or so, I, too, might be getting paid
to hack Unix. And MS-DOS.  

>-Ekr


===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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