HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Keywords: National Abortion Federation = Pro-abortion??
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:09:59 GMT

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

> But it's a funny thing how the "speculation" appears in
> prestigious law journals like the Harvard Law Review.

Yes, I've been laughing about it for months.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 15 Sep 1992 12:24:43 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <nyikos.716566976@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>Son of a gun! Adrienne CAN be sensible if she wants to be. [I've known this
>for some time, but this is the first real opportunity to say it on the net.]

Oh no you don't, Peter.  I'm on your non-person list, remember?  You have
unilaterally completely de-personed me, and I've ceased to exist.  You
cannot now, after the fact, come dancing on to the net saying I've said
something sensible, no way.

Makes the *rest* of your sources look even MORE suspect!!!


>the "population pyramid" would be if abortion were, say, only permitted
>(1) in the "hard cases" of threat to the life of the mother, rape, and
>incest and (2) under my more generous conditions.


Heck, Peter, don't stop there.  Let's discuss a 'real-world' example,
like, say, Roumania for instance.  How did it work?  Look like a good idea?
Why should we stop with the notion of abortion only being permitted in
case X -- why not consider the implications of the government DEMANDING
a certain population growth?  Tell me you don't think governmental control
can swing both ways....

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: You Should Have Known I'd Do This (to Galen et. al.)
Keywords: hang glider, rights, harness, viable
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:34:14 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

> Open letter to Galen:

>         Your advanced hang glider, the one you do not let anyone go
> up in who has had no previous experience, has asked me to tell you that
> it does not like your posting about how what a woman may or may not feel
> while hang-gliding compares to what she may or may not feel while
> pregnant.

> {Recall how you wrote the other day on the "Corn (was Re: Badges of Honor)"
> thread: "I checked with someone who does both and she assures me that hang
> gliding is not even remotely like being pregnant."}

Mr. Nyikos would give more credence to a hang glider than a woman, and that
doesn't surprise me at all.

>         Like so many others, you missed the point that it is you who is
> inhabiting the hang glider, and not vice versa.  Your advanced hang glider
> has asked me to tell you that it alone is qualified to speak of what it
> is like to be inhabited by you.

That hang glider was bought and paid for by Galen.  Is this the beginning of
an "Empancipate Hang Gliders and Enslave Women" movement?

>         It says that, as Ms. Regard might put it, giving you and other
> experienced hang gliders the right to inhabit it is giving yourselves
> a right over and above ANY rights any other human being on this planet
> has.  NO OTHER HUMAN BEING has the right to inhabit this hang glider 
> against its will, yet you would suggest that you should have that right?

Of course, hang gliders don't get morning sickness nor do their bodies have
to make radical changes to accommodate the hang glider pilot.

>         Your hang glider tells me it thinks that's bogus.

Your 'hang glider == pregnant woman' analogy is bogus.  It's like saying that
the fetus 'pilots' the woman.  The farther I get into replying to your open
letter, the more I agree with Susan Garvin that your inept try at satire is
insulting to women.

[--rest of open letter deleted--]

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
       "I ain't man enuff to be a mudder!" -- Robin Williams as "Popeye"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: il57@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
Subject: About Nyikos' historical data (?)
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 02:16:01 GMT

I just read Re: Caney chokes again, courtesy of Peter Nyikos.
Are you aware that in this document, which you are using as factual
evidence that a fetus has been legally regarded as a living person,
that the use of witchcraft is mentioned?  Witchcraft.  You want 
anyone to take this seriously, or what?  Come on... I mean...really...
Witchcraft????!!!!  Those people were obviously capable of believing
ANYTHING.  I'm new around here, but if that's the best you can do then
Pro-Choicers are in better shape than I thought (thank goodness).
just my opinions.
Kevin Kennedy
il57@vaxb.acs.unt.edu

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 22:34:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.002716.19838@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
# From article <1992Sep2.001506.19237@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
# > 
# > Let's not forget MissBitch's comment about how Gay men "Hate women because
# > they won't have sex with them".
# 
# 
# What I said was that gay men have sex with men because they hate women.

So, um Suzanne... do straight women have sex with men because they hate
women?  (You *can* draw from experience on this one can't you?)

-- 
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: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Peter, do you even know how to READ? (Was: 3 docs in a 3-way).
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 18:53:41 GMT

In <Bu6AM0.FLu@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>In article <1992Sep6.162508.10966@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>In article <nyikos.715733197@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>Sorry, I missed that one.  And it seems so out of character, I find it
>>>hard to believe he wasn't being satirical.  Which thread was it on, so
>>>I can see the context?
>>
>>Peter, have you read ANY article on talk.abortion?  I mean, you post so much
>>crap here that I assumed you actually READ what you were replying to...

>Keep in mind you're dealing with someone who said if he'd known about Dale
>Ann's condition, he wouldn't have casually dropped my name into his sleazy
>little attempt to repeat Chaney's slur

Actually, I was referring to my threat to "r" to your posts when I said
"Consider it unsaid,"

> -- but somehow couldn't figure out
>that he did it a couple of days *before* Dale Ann landed in the Hermann
>Hospital

So, was that the first indication you gave that Dale Ann had any kind of
health problem?  By now, you've assured me the answer is yes, and that
only shows us how boorish you are being.  I wanted to give you the benefit
of the doubt, and let readers know that I thought I'd simply missed out
on your posts.  Now I see that you were in such emotional turmoil that
this and my "Consider it unsaid" comment went completely over your head.

Or did your emotional turmoil have anything to do with it?  Are you
really as big of a chip-on-the-shoulder redneck as your recent
posts seem to indicate?

Peter Ny.



Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35728 alt.abortion.inequity:3649
From: kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Keywords: abortion
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:33:28 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Sep12.133845.13714@cs.rose-hulman.edu> luebeckd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu writes:
>
>It has occurred to me that the fundamental debate over abortion is really  
>about whether one says that a pregnant womb contains an unborn, but  
>living, child or a fetus, which is just tissues.
>
>If everyone could know that a womb contains a living unborn child, then it  
>would be obvious that abortion is a form of murder, and few would condone  
>it.
>
>On the other hand, if everyone knew that a womb contains only tissues, or  
>some other matter that is not a life, then few would really care if  
>someone did have an abortion, beacuse there was nothing there in the first  
>place.
>
>Nearly all debate on abortion degenerates into this fundamental question.
>Can this question be adequately answered?

It occurs to me that you are overlooking the fact that the "pregnant womb"
itself is contained in something; a woman, with a life about which the vast
majority of citizens know nothing. She is married or single, rich or poor,
emotionally stable or a basket case, had consentual sex or was raped, has
a good job or is unemployed, etc... SHE has thoughts and concerns about
this child/fetus/whateveryouwanttocallit contained in her "pregnant womb."

It seems to ME that the fundamental debate over abortion is whether or not
she is allowed to make her own decision wrt a pregnancy, based on her
intimate knowledge and assessment of her life and situation. It's not about
whether or not abortion is killing; it is. It's not about the nature of
the whateveryouwanttocallit; there is obviously no consensus. We can't decide
on an objective set of criteria for "personhood," let alone determine who/what
possesses it. I don't think your question can be answered to everyone's
satisfaction.

I, for one, am not presumptuous enough to think I know what is best for every
woman in America, or in the world. I believe that only she can make this
determination, since it is her body and her situation which will be affected.
I don't think it is up to anyone else to tell her that her body must be used
for 9 months (and her resources beyond that, if she decides to keep a baby),
any more than I think it is anyone else's place to force her to have an
abortion.

Having said all that, I try to avoid saying that any issue as complex and
emotional as abortion boils down to "simply" anything. But if there is *a*
fundamental issue, it must involve the woman, not just the womb.

-Kristy


-- 
 +==========================+================================================+
 |Kristy Patterson          | Nothing really rocks, and nothing really rolls,|
 |kristyp@mac.dartmouth.edu | & nothing's ever worth the cost.      -Meatloaf|
 +==========================+=================================Bat Out of Hell+
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hey, Mr. Chaney!
Summary: Ooh, I feel so *violated*.
Date: 9 Sep 1992 18:44:16 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Sep9.160819.18049@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>Steve Chaney wrote:
># So that's why you're making all the retractions and I'm the one
># pounding them out of you, one at a time? 
>
>You are overusing the violence metaphor.  In a major way.
>
>Stop it.  Now.
>
>I mean it.

Let him run his mouth off all he wants -- he does a far better job of
destroying himself than anything anyone else could ever do to him.  

-- 
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. 
The U.S. Constitution isn't perfect -- but it's a hell of a lot better than
                            what we have now...
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36684 alt.abortion.inequity:3789
From: ASWFM@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:03:25 GMT
 <Sep12.072322.84133@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> <tzwnpsr.gordons@netcom.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Arizona State University

Here's the solution to the entire abortion issue:

1. Create a database comprised of all anti-abortionists, anti-choicers,
   pro-lifers, etc., and that means everyone - man, woman, and child.

2. Perfect the technique of embryo/fetus transplant (as far as I know,
   it is only currently being used with race horses; pregnant champion
   race horses don't perform very well, so there have been occasions for
   a surrogate to carry the offspring; the mother passes on her bloodlines,
   but continues to race).

3. Combine the results of steps 1 and 2 above and use the 'volunteers'
   from step 1 as surrogates for those women who desire to terminate
   their pregnancies.

Both sides of the abortion argument will then be happy. Pro-choicers will
retain the option of terminating or completing her pregnancy, and anti-
choicers will have all pregnancies go full-term.  Any pro-lifer failing to
add their name to the database in step 1 above must in fact be a hypocrite
and should be drawn and quartered.


Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Questions about "consensus"
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:18:14 GMT


I would like to know where the idea came from that laws are made
simply because the majority decided something was wrong. 

By the way, this is a trick question. 


=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Another gem -- this time from Peter Nyikos
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:57:30 GMT

In <1992Sep11.155334.8415@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>In article <1992Sep10.184620.8392@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>># nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

Following a quote from Frederica Mathewes-Green about the unhealthiness
of holding pregnancy in contempt:

>># #{Satire, but with a grain of truth: Now do you see why I have such a
>># #bad case of womb envy?}
>># 
>># Right, Nyikos, it makes as much sense as envying soldiers because
>># they get to wear such pretty uniforms while ignoring the dangers
>># that they face.
>>
>>So who's going to write the lyrics to `Pregnancy Hymn of the Republic?'
>>
>You HAD to ask.

>Mine eyes have seen the glory of my breakfast being lost,
>And I'm still sick in the nighttime when the backache makes me toss,
>And if I have stopped my weeping it's because I am too cross,
>With Hormones raging on!

>Run, run into the bathroom,
>Run, run into the bathroom,
>Run, run into the bathroom,
>With Hormones raging on!

>muriel
>standard disclaimer

Do we have here another case of pregnancy being held in contempt?

Peter Ny.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: RE: Why the 5 week sentience point?
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:39:55 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

> In article <brandonu.ca mcbeanb.mail.abortion:12>, nyikos@milo.math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>> 
>>>      I forgot to ask why you choose the onset of sentience as
>>> the cutoff point.
>> 
>> Well, to use the colorful words I picked up from one of the networkers
>> (Elizabeth Bartley, I think) that's when you can say that "somebody's
>> home."

Well, you can say that, but I haven't an opinion on the matter.
But are you saying you have a person 5 weeks after conception?
 
>>>  Plants are sentient, so are animals...
>> 
>> The first is sheer speculation.  Which part of the plant is the seat
>> of sentience?  With humans, you will hear it asserted that sentience
>> is only associated with the neocortex, which is lacking in most
>> animals.   

Animals are generally sentient, neocortex argument or not... 

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Abortion techniques and fetal survival
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 00:23:59 GMT

In <1992Sep01.184825.34350@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <1992Sep1.161013.15018@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep01.052644.22782@watson.ibm.com>
>> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>
>> > The statement that the states *may* enact legislation is correct.  The
>> > Pennsylvania legislation was struck down in Colautti v. Franklin for
>> > vagueness, *not* because the Supreme Court ruled that the states may
>> > not enact such legislation.
>>
>> The states may not enforce legislation which would require the physician
>> to employ the abortion technique which would most likely result in
>> a fetus aborted alive,

>This statement is not correct.

>> since that type of legislation was struck down in Colautti v. Franklin.
>  ^^^^^
>How do you conclude one from the other, when you admit that the
>legislation was struck down for vagueness, and is therefore totally
>irrelevant to the question?  Please stick to the topic, Doug.

>The legislation struck down in Colautti v. Franklin was a Pennsylvania
>law; since then Pennsylvania has passed new abortion restrictions.  These
>were challenged before the Supreme Court.  Some parts were struck down,
>but the requirement that two doctors be present, one just for the fetus,
>and similar provisions also relating to fetal survival in third-trimester
>abortions were *not* struck down.

They were in Thornburgh v. Coll. of OB/Gyn.  To the best of my knowledge,
no such law was upheld until Webster v. Repro.

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@acm.rpi.edu>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 04:25:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.152346.21670@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> In <1992Sep10.114521.21248@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
->    (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >
-> In article <1992Sep9.231533.14559@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu 
->    (Stephen A Chaney) writes: >>
-> >> I proved my case and presented all the facts needed to prove it beyond
-> >> a reasonable doubt. 
-> >
-> > Perhaps in the dimly lit theater of your mind you did.
-> >
-> > This boy is one funny little feller.  Keeps declaring victory
-> > for himself no matter how stupid the posting he presents.
-> > 
-> > And Overpeck doesn't think this little feller needs a therapist?
-> 
-> Hmm.  Well, to me, it doesn't sound substantively different than 
-> the following, which was written after I'd asked Keegan to defend 
-> his diagnostic impressions by providing a list of symptoms that
-> seem applicable to Holtsinger or Chaney 

believe it or not, bill did ask this of me! i've been trying
to come up with some king of reasonable explanation for his
having done so, but i can't. i never posted a "diagnostic
impression." i have no qualifications to do so, not have i
ever claimed any. i've repeatedly expressed clearly labeled
opinions and bill seems compelled to label them otherwise.
if some well-known posters had done this, there would be no
question that they were openly lying. i'd hate to suggest that
bill is. perhaps there's another explanation and i just
haven't thought of it.


-- 
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 15:20:38 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)

In article <nyikos.715655719@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <1992Sep3.213620.21098@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
##
##In <1992Sep3.201731.13010@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
#
###From article <1992Aug26.061545.18227@s1.gov>, by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
#### 	Well, to be fair, even Jesus Christ was known for white-hot
#### rages, or so his biographers depict. Consider what those poor Scribes
#### and Pharisees suffered.
#
###Oh, yeah, He really crucified them.
#
##     I am disgusted. I find this lighthearted treatment of the Savior's
##agony on the cross appalling and blasphemous. I demand an apology!
#
#You don't fool me for one second, M. Price.  I wonder if anyone doesn't
#see you are being sarcastic.

Why would you say that, Nyikos?  Do you think that no Christians
support legal abortion?  Any other stereotypes that you subscribe
to that you'd like to tell us about?

I note that you didn't make a similar response the last time DOD
got all self righteous about a religion he claims not to believe
in.  I'm not surprised.

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The use of fat black ass to describe Chaney is unsupported
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 05:29:27 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <29700@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU>  smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
> In article <1992Sep10.182550.27113@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
> >In  <29674@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU>  smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen
> J. Mezias) writes:
> >> Personally, I would never use fat black ass to describe an African
> >> American.
> >
> >Nobody on the net did describe anyone that way.
>
> I was unclear.  I would not say fat black ass to an African American
> (nor would I say African American ass).  I would not say Jewish ass to
> a Jew, nor would I say Oriental ass to an East Asian.  Personally, if I
> had said it, I would have apologized long ago to end all of this
> posting about it, despite the obvious despicable nature of the object
> of the insult.
>
> >The term was used to refer to a portion of anatomy.  That some people
> >are unable to distinguish between "Get your ass over here" and "Get
> >over here, you ass" is unfortunate, but should not reflect on the
> >speaker.
>
> Our disagreement is minor, but proof positive that those of us on the
> pro-choice side do occasionally disagree.

*Are* we in disagreement?  Do you not see the semantic difference between
the two statements?  At no point did I claim that what Patrick said was
*right*; I just pointed out that those saying he referred to Chaney *as*
a fat black ass are incorrect.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion