HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: (Kevin Darcy) writes supposedly `specious' pro-choice arguments:
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 05:07:06 GMT

In article <C01nIB.1n1@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.174801.2708@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>> In article <C014os.ID3@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) 
>writes:
>> >
>> >In article <34636@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. 
>> >Mezias) writes:
>> >> In article <1992Dec25.033234.4258@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
>> >> (Kevin Darcy) writes supposedly `specious' pro-choice arguments:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >You were doing great Kevin, until you bit the bait. ...hey distract 
>> >people from the real issue - abortion kills children.
>> >
>
>> No Paul, abortion kills fetuses. Not the same thing as a child at all.
>
>I see you like the game too.  Try this:  A fetus is a state of childhood, as is neonate, infant, toddler, prepubescent, etc., etc.
>
No Paul, a fetus is a state of development that the fertilized egg
goes through before it can become a child.

>Isn't it curios that a 'wanted' unborn child will almost always be 
>referred to as 'baby' by the expectant mother, but the soon to aborted 
>child get's labelled 'fetus'?  So yes, of course you are right Mark, 
>abortions only kill 'fetuses' since if they were children they would have 
>been born.  Now I see your logic!
>
The expectant mother is not involved in a debate, so I couldnt' care
less if she uses the correct terminology. But it is nice to see you
admit that I am correct. Does this mean you will also be retracting
your inccorect claim that more women die of abortions now then when
abortions were illegal?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Yo Mamma...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 09:37:34 GMT

clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
] In article <1992Dec29.052441.17244@nwnexus.WA.COM> pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe) writes:
] >-- 
] >Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
] >Next Months Panel Topic: Graft - boon or blessing?
] >EOF
] 	Just what we need; a right-wing drieux wannabe.

So what am I?

Chopped Liver?

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 23 Dec 92 22:18:11 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec18.045238.27691@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <TODD.92Dec18123853@ai07.elcom.nitech.ac.jp> todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp writes:

>}Another thought experiment:

>}You are a five-month old fetus.  You are semiconcious in the womb. 

>But you can't think.  Oh well, end of experiment.  The remainder of
>Todd's pure speculation deleted.

Hmmph. A second trimester fetus can't think. Todd can't think. Todd may
be more qualified to think for the unborn than anyone in this group, except
Suzanne Forgach...

May the circle be unbroken ...(on both sides.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Suzanne's Scared of O'Tuama??
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:24:49 GMT

From article by  Steve Novak <steven@advtech.uswest.com>:
> 
> Boy, just when it was getting good.

Too bad you missed it.


> I'm sure some of you noticed the fawning, nervous "smilies" of Suzanne as
> she struggled to stay on the good side of Ms. O'Tuama.


Obviously, I've never given a damn about being on _anyone's_ good side in
this newsgroup.


> C'mon, Suzanne!  Tell us more about all those "incredible freedoms" you
> had to get all horny with your MANY male friends, and how this fits into
> the "if you think of it, you're guilty" school of repressive Christianity
> you follow.


You jerk.  I never used the word "horny" or "lust" (as somebody else was
throwing around here), nor anything like them, nor did I intend any meaning
similar to them.  All that gutter stuff is all in your own heads.   Even 
when it's been explained to you, you have no concept of what joy of a pure
relationships is.


S. Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
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: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 03:37:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.012457.16643@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec25.200245.13638@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec20.021358.18235@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>[Where's that chainsaw...]
>>
>>>Not really. They could opt to just run the risk of a lawsuit. The point here
>>>is that Cochran has thrown his support behind a "legal restriction" that 
>>>doesn't exist right now. Above, you even admit that persons OTHER than the 
>>>patient, can sign the consent forms, but Cochran made no such qualification
>>>when he announced his "legal restriction". Above, you seem to admit that 
>>>while the consent forms may "feel" [sic] like a statutory requirement, that 
>>>they may not in fact be a statutory requirement. Unless you have a rabbit to 
>>>pull out of your hat now, I think it's time to admit that no such "legal 
>>>restriction" exists.
>>
>>Wrong again, Kebbin.  I had six teeth pulled a couple of months ago.  They
>>wouldn't do the surgery until I had signed the form.  Obviously, if I was
>>under the age of consent, my legal guardians would have to sign.
>
>Was this a statutory requirement, or just something the insurance company
>(yours and/or your dentist's) required?
>
It's a legal requirement Kebbin. There's even restrictions on who is
allowed to go over the form with the patient and explain the procedure
and its associated risks.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: The Mendacity of Susan Garvin, Part 2 [Was: Meet Pete...]
Keywords: right-to-lie about Nyikos, Holtsinger, Chaney,...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:01:25 GMT

In <1208@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:


>PHoney seems to think that we all save his every post.  Maybe he
>thinks of them as lectures, and he thinks that we're taking notes.

Nyikos expects people to give fair accounts about the posts they are
following up to.  He also wonders where Garvin got those posts of
Chaney's that she produced when accused of forgery, and how she knows
they were unaltered if she got them from someone else.

>I have no idea what he said about the woman who was fired from
>the clinic in his first post about Dr. Tiller.

Then why did you claim I was saying it for the first time, about her
being fired?

Note, Susan, I am not accusing you of lying.  I am accusing you of
bearing false (look up the word false) witness against me.  Of course,
you do not think of me as your neighbor, and you may not even give
a hoot about the Biblical commandment, but there you have what I am
accusing you of.

  I remember that
>he claimed that she was pro-choice (of course, PHoney thinks
>that Rev. Holtsinger is pro-choice), and a former employee.
>I don't recall that he said she'd been fired.  Maybe he did,
>but I don't remember it.  (It's time for DODie to announce that
>I do, too, remember it.)

Do you remember whether you ever had a photo of a fetal pig?

Do you remember whether the ARC told women to return to the 
abortionist for medical help, as you once claimed they did?

Do you remember asking that Orthodox Rabbi about ONE tenet
of ONE Reformed woman rabbi, or did you ask him a question
about ALL OF REFORM JUDAISM, thereby rendering his answer
irrelevant to anything that ever passed between you and me
on talk.abortion?

For more questions, and possible answers, see "Saturnalia I".


>I did notice that Petey Honey did not comment on the patient's
>words about Dr. Tiller.

I wonder whether she was a patient at all.  You posted over a 
hundred lines about her in another place, but we are supposed
to figure out whether she actually went thru with the abortion,
or returned to Chicago after changing her mind.

Note to Mark Cochran: this woman was at least 26 1/2 weeks 
pregnant, by her own estimate.

So, Susan, did the woman have an abortion, or not?

I'm waiting for your answer.

>  He's in a tight spot.

Mark is, yes.

>  If he claims
>that she doesn't know what she's talking about, he can't post
>any more rants about NancyJo Mann.

I never claimed EVERY WOMAN was dissatisfied with her abortion.
 
What were your SAT scores, Susan?

Are you a college student?  What exactly are you doing at CMU 
anyway?

If you are not as dumb as you seem to be, then your talk of "rants about 
Nancyjo Mann" puts you firmly in the pro-abortionist camp.

Which will it be?  Dumb? or Pro-Abortionist?

I'll be glad to e-mail you my proposed FAQ entry if you did not save it.

[Rest of Susan's usual shit-against-the-wall deleted.]

Peter Ny.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 23:00:15 GMT

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>I'll take this opportunity to remind everyone that the only member
>or official of NARAL who claims that the estimates of deaths due
>to illegal abortion were grossly exaggerated is Bernard Nathanson.
>This admitted liar is now a leader in the anti-abortion movement.
>His claims about NARAL's actions have not been confirmed by any
>of the other members.  (Nathanson likes to pass himself off as the
>driving force behind NARAL.  If one looks at the early history of
>the organization, or reads the words of the other founders, this
>claim is contradicted.)

>I read some books on abortion that were published in the 50's and
>60's.  I'll get the numbers again next week, but the estimates
>of abortion related deaths in those books were in line with the
>estimates that Nathanson so desperately wants to debunk.  
>Further, anyone who asks a doctor who worked in an emergency
>room in an urban area before Roe can hear first hand accounts
>of how common these deaths were, and how unlikely the claim
>that 90% of all abortions were done in doctor's offices is.
>The fact that many hospitals had entire wards for treating 
>abortion complications is further evidence that this claim
>is constructed out of wishful thinking at best.

>Susan

Sources please.

Regarding Nathanson... of COURSE no other NARAL members are going to
support his statements.  Would you actually think they would? 

Let us not forget that even sources don't mean much.  Statistics can
be manufactured to support almost anything.


Edward Simmonds


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: The Incredible Bulk (was Re: "No Statistics" does NOT mean "No Problem Exists," Larry!)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 01:40:39 GMT

In article <1hcpq3INN1cj@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>No, you, personally, Mr. Will Steeves, do not 'need' statistics.  You will
>not shrivel up and die tomorrow without statistics.  However, GIVEN the bulk
>of anecdotal evidence against your position, and your handful of anecdotal
>evidence for your position, you *do* need statistics to convince any thinking
>person that there is a real tangable human problem that your position address-
>es and solves.  

Huh? Where is this "bulk of anecdotal evidence" against the position of
paternity child support reform? I've heard dozens if not hundreds of stories
about men who have been destroyed by "the system". Some have been tossed into 
jail for their "crime" of non-support. One that I've heard of committed 
suicide. There are reports of a rise in courtroom shootings related to custody
and support hearings.

So, where is the "bulk" of anecdotal evidence to the contrary?

>>I *have* shown *many* stories of individuals
>>who have been forced to be parents.  Is this not *enough* for you?  Then, what
>>is? 
>
>Ah, but others have *many* *many* stories of women and children who have been
>promised support and then were DENIED it.  

Are you talking about promises of support above and beyond what the law
requires, Adrienne? If so, then the women were stupid to not get the promises
in writing in the first place (oh, yeah, I forgot, it's so "unromantic" to
get promises in writing; too bad then, honey, romance isn't always cheap). 
If not, then what ARE you talking about?

>And there *are* statistics of
>the number of children who live in poverty, and the likelihood of one's
>standard of living dropping below the poverty line without the financial
>support of the father.

Children who probably wouldn't be born at all if the laws were already
reformed...

>So, you get to draw your own conclusions, Will.  So far, you aren't gathering
>much support.  

Hmmm, really? Two and a half years ago, I saw only Hillel Gazit on the Net
criticizing the sexism of the paternity child support laws. Now I see dozens 
of posters on the Net posting in support of reforms. We may yet create a
mainstream newsgroup just to discuss the topic. If the idea of removing these
inequities strikes such a responsive chord here on Usenet, might it not
strike a similarly-responsive chord out in the Real World as well?

>What would bring you more support?  Some real evidence that
>a problem exists that needs solving from social agency.  

The long trail of destroyed lives is enough evidence, IMO.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Meet Operation Rescue
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 19:20:20 GMT


In article <1099@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, sgast+@pitt.edu writes:
|Since Nyikos has chosen to bring up the siege of Wichita, I thought
|that some people might be interested in this report from a woman
|who had an abortion at Dr. Tiller's clinic.  This excerpt is from
|"Speak Out! Magazine" (Pro-Choice Network of Western New Yokr, Inc.,
|Summer, 1992), but the full testimony was given before the U.S.
|House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on
|Crime and Criminal Justice, May 6, 1992.  Certainly it is only
|anecdotal evidence, but it is another side of the story.

|(It's quite long, sorry.) [...]

Thank you for posting that. 

It jives with what I've seen at clinic defenses.  The OR people
go a little insane.  They scream, rave, shout obscenities, and
behave like anything but the Christians they claim to be.  Should
raving lunatics be allowed to take away our rights?

	NO!

Should police be allowed to enforce the law inconsistently, and
be lenient to the side their mayor agrees with politically, as
they were in Wichita?  

	NO!

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Elizabeth, none of us men out here "know" what pregnancy is like and what 
it does to the woman psychologically.  What we do know is that often it is 
painful and unwanted.  It is like a harmless slavery of sorts." 
--Kevin Welch, a pro-lifer
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: about chasing people off the net
Date: 4 Jan 93 04:42:29 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:
-> Correction: Siren never argued for late term restrictions. She was 
-> neutral. Of course, she was ACCUSED of arguing for late term restrictions,

is that so? hmmm. i wonder who made that accusation,
assuming, of course, that it did happen as you claim.

natually, i'd like to see some evidence.

"Your statement is meaningless without any supporting evidence."
			Kevin Darcy
			1991Jun15.164755.17932@rotag.mi.org

        "I provide all of the necessary evidence for every claim
        I make, or retract it."
			Kevin Darcy
			<1992Feb11.054339.25284@rotag.mi.org>
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: t.a. FAQ (part 2 of 3 - REPOST)
Date: 31 Dec 92 00:08:54 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@crd.ge.com
Organization: "T.S.A.K.C"


From
rdsunx.crd.ge.com!crdgw1!rpi!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!caen!nic.umass.edu!nic
c.umass.edu!ejones Sun Jun 14 20:41:43 EDT 1992
Article: 10305 of talk.abortion
Xref: rdsunx.crd.ge.com talk.abortion:10305 news.answers:836
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 03:39:06 GMT

In article <34614@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> 
smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

> [...] his real agenda involves passing legislation
> that would force women to bear unwanted pregnancies.  

I have stated numerous times I am undecided on the issue of 
legislation, but that I do oppose Roe v. Wade and the FOCA.
My arguments against abortion often revolve around moral
issues, and they should not be confused with arguments in 
favor of legal restrictions.  


[... rest of delirious ranting deleted ...]

>SJM  


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Date: 4 Jan 93 02:07:21 GMT
	<PATRICK.93Jan3183146@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
	<1993Jan4.010225.29075@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: You slam 'em, we ham 'em...

In article <1993Jan4.010225.29075@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

   In article <PATRICK.93Jan3183146@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
   >In article <1993Jan3.221447.8469@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
   >>
   >>In article <1993Jan3.183600.13294@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
   >>>
   >>>   [Entire totally non-abortion related article deleted]
   >
   >>   DODie, what the hell is this crap?
   >>   Why do you find it necessary to bring your religious arguments from
   >>   soc.singles to t.a? Neither of them is appropriate, but if that
   >>   concept is beyond the ability of your feeble mind to grasp, then at
   >>   least leave the dammed thing in the group where it started.
   >>   Do you practice being this stooopid, or were you born this way?
  
  >I'd say he puts in quite a bit of practice at it -- for a good example, try
  >fingering his account at eceyv some time.  Really cute .plan, if you ask me.
  >(Not quite the artwork of Chaney's, but you can tell he exercised his single
  >neuron to the limits in producing it...:-)
  
   Well, I'm sure he practices, but don't you think it takes a certain
   inborn (or more correctly, inbred) trait to be capable of such
   astounding feats of stupidity?

It's possible -- but I have to wonder just what's in the water up there in
Raleigh.  Interesting coincidence, that -- two of t.a's most characterless
posters just happen to both have been CompSci grad students at NC State...

--PLH, maybe it's fumes from the printer in Daniels, who knows?  :-)

  
--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Meet Operation Rescue
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 00:52:01 GMT

In article <CORWIN+.92Dec24140340@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> 
corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>>      "Abortion foes stereotyped, some in the media believe",
>>>>      by David Shaw, Los Angeles Times, July 2, 1990,

>>> What is the point?

>> Ms. Garvin posted a one-sided and biased account of a woman's 
>> encounter with Operation Rescue.  In response, I posted another 
>> viewpoint of the group.  Sorry if that confused you.

> Your article had nothing to do with Operation Rescue.  

Obviously you didn't read the article, since it mentioned 
Operation Rescue 12 times.

> It seemed to be mindless blathering about the mediate and 
> anti-choice folks.  

I'm not surprised that you're unsure of the article's 
contents--many people can't bring themselves to read
material which might conflict with their preconceived 
notions about the world.  

BTW, the article above is part of a four-part series about
media bias against the pro-life movement which ran in the
Los Angeles Times, July 1--4 1990.  

>Scott Safier                                   


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion