HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 06:18:48 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  <1992Sep1.014646.25115@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> ---
> From: swb@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Steve Buffum)
>
> [....]
>
>      Obviously Mo has missed the point of talk.abortion.  I don't read
> the newsgroup myself, but I read alt.flame, which seems to be an alias
> for talk.abortion anyway.  As far as I can tell, talk.abortion has absolutely
> nothing to do with changing anyone's feelings or even having rational
> discussions.  It is for ranting and raving.

A reasonable assumption from someone who doesn't read t.a and so only sees
what's crossposted to alt.flame.  Was there a point to this?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: OH, DOUG...
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 22:04:11 GMT


   We now know ABSOLUTELY what you think of abortion in the third
trimester of pregnancy.  What the question is still waiting to be
answered.  Is there ANY elective abortion to which a woman should
have unfettered access?  You go on and on, and on, about the same
old shit.  Have you the intellectual honesty to answer the simple
question I have asked?  It's not a difficult question.  It's just
a direct question.  That could be why you are having such a tough
time with it.
   You should realize that you are starting to look a lot like an
idiot.  The question is designed to show that you are really just
one or more of the following:

1.  Completely against ALL choice.

2. An idiot

3. A liar.

4. a forced-birth lying idiot.

   Personally, I think you lean towards number four.  If you want
to put on your righteous indignation beanie to evade answering my
question, that's okay.  Or if you want to not respond to what you
were asked, that also fine.  Either way, you show more about your
character than you probably realize.
   Or you can shock us all, and actually ANSWER the question.  By
'answer,' I do not mean another stanza of the Holtsinger Shuffle.
I mean a direct ANSWER.

-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 29 Aug 92 13:56:41 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

> Chaneyhall shows his ignorance as usual
>> Suxie prattles on
>>> Mark Kauffman

>>>    The figure on third trimester abortions is that they represent
>>> less than one in one thousand abortions performed in America.  

>>1/1000 * (1.5 million) = 1500 babies per year = 4 viable babies per day,
>>every single day of the year, that are put to death for no fault of their
>>own.   So this is what America stands for, is it.

>A third trimester fetus can survive independently of the mother. 
>That means all abortions should be outright banned in the third
>trimester because no woman needs to kill a fetus that old, because
>s/he can survive independently. 

No shit, Sherlock.  THAT IS WRITTEN INTO ROE V. WADE.

>In short, the law should demand that the procedure result in a live
>fetus and the use of an incubator, with no exceptions. 

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you have NO IDEA that that was
upheld by the Supreme Court NINETEEN YEARS AGO.

I wonder if I'll live to see the day that you know what you're talking
about on ANY topic ...

>It is this reason that "pro-choice" has always and always will mean
>"anti-life." 

So, how many children have you adopted (under any of your pseudonyms)?

>Any questions, folks? Didn't think so.  

Yeah.  When are you going to get educated so you will stop embarassing
yourself?


-- 
"A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:39:25 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <lefty-270892153805@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com writes:

> In article <1992Aug26.180056.16768@menudo.uh.edu>, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu
> (MILLER, JIMMY A.) wrote:
> > 
> > In <17gbdiINNtc@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com writes:
> > 
> > >  I don't give a damn what information she uses.
> > 
> >   Then you are a fool.  It should be complete and accurate.
> 
> I agree, Jim.
> 
> I think any woman who wants an abortion should be required to get a degree
> in obstetrics and gynecology first.

  Well, you are entitled to your opinion.  By this logic, which ain't mine,
any woman wanting to be pregnant should do the same.  Is there a name for
this kind of ridiculous extrapolation?

> Semper fish, Jim-bo!
> Lefty (lefty@apple.com)

  Hey, Lefty!  Where's Pancho?  (wondering if anyone will get this obscure
reference to an old country song)

  I'm outta this thread.

Jim
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: I *WISH* they'd keep their stories straight... (Was: People...)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 02:39:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.005228.20374@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Aug30.010613.3907@crd.ge.com>, by keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
>> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes to susan garvin:
>> -> I also wish that you would display the same
>> -> compassion towards the children who are going inside
>> -> the clinic to be killed.
>> 
>> can you name one chile who walked into a clinic and was
>> killed?
>
>Can you say --- Becky Bell?

I really do wish you people could get your stories synchronized.  On the one
hand we have Peter(?), screaming about how Becky didn't die of abortion
complications, and Suxanne screaming about how she did...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=I am not "pro-life"... - Doug Holtsinger in article                          =
=                                          <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu>   =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:06:04 GMT

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> It's your fault CJ, do something --
It's poor salt blue jay, glue snuffling --
-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
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: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 15:01:58 GMT

In article <nyikos.715301463@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scaroli
a.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <Btrrt3.4w5.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>About the Becky Bell tragedy:
>
>>Death certificates are part of the public record, Nyikos.  If you feel
>>a need to pry further into someone's personal tragedy, you can
>>obtain a copy of the death certificate yourself.  You call Willke's
>>argument-with-an-agenda "better documented."   Did it not
>>include the coroner's report and the death certificate?
>
>It had a lot to say about it, and I will be quoting extensively
>from it, when I get a little time. [BTW O'Keeffe & Jones provided
>no documentation at all.]
>
Did it or did it not include the coroner's report and the 
death certificate?  (From Nyikos' comments, I assume that
it only contained Willke's impressions of the official
documentation.)


>  In the meantime, I leave you
>with this thought: coroners are
>not necessarily up on what deaths due to abortion are like.
>They're awfully rare, or have you forgotten?  Could be this
>was the first alleged case this particular coroner had ever dealt
>with.  
>
Do you always engage in baseless speculation?

How many autopsies has Willke attended or performed on 
anyone, much less on women who died from the effects of
illegal abortions?

>Also, the autopsy did not say "induced abortion," it said
>"abortion."  Did the coroner say on 60 minutes that in his
>opinion, it was an induced abortion?

To the best of my memory, he did.  He stated quite clearly
that Willke's version was not based on any scientific
evidence.  

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Keywords: Reinforcements
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:20:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.124039.11946@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

> Fetuses had never received legal protection under the law,

This statement is not correct.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Only God Can Help Us!
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:14:23 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Aug26.112909.25187@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writ
>es:
>>something CAN happen that is NOT god's will.  And, of course, that
>>just happens to be a procedure that saves the lives of thousands of
>>women in this country alone,

>Not per year, it does not.  You have to go back to the 1940's before
>penicillin to have more than 1,000 women dying of abortion--and even
>then it was death from spontaneous and induced abortion and "abortion
>from unknown causes" lumped together.

Nyikos proves again that he is completely clueless. Peter (very appropiate)
there are over 200,000 women per year that die in Brazil, a country
of approximately 150 or so million people. Brazil has made abortion
illegal. There are more abortions done in Brazil per year than in the
US, which has a larger population. These sentences are short and on
a seventh grade reading level, so that you may comprehend them more
easily. Posting of info and stats will follow this post, as I believe
I've got them archived.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:18:37 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: The fine line between infanticide and abortion

In the Kamchadal tribe of northeastern Siberia, a fetus may be killed
during the last stage of pregnancy through method that involved the
piercing of the abdomonal wall.  The result was either a stillbirth or
the birth of a injured baby that was immediately killed.

The Yanomano Indians of Venezueala had a similar procedure, though they
carried out their procedure at earlier point in the woman's pregnancy,
the sixth or seventh month.  This is still the third trimester.  

Michael Loomis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: portrait of a sick misogynist
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:56:15 CST
Followup-To: misc.test,alt.women-haters
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep1.014446.15422@crd.ge.com>, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
> in a loathsome display of misogyny,
> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes: 
> -> I personally would like to see what bra-burning
> -> feminazi crazies like Suzie Q ...

What's wrong with bra-burning anyway?  Do they release nasty 
ozone-unfriendly chemicals?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:22:52 GMT

In <BtvCwr.G94.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
   (Susan Garvin) writes: #
In article <1992Aug31.144107.23778@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >

#Passive-aggressive behavior is also unhealthy, Jim.  

>When laypeople refer to someone else's mental problems on
>the net, I doubt that anyone takes them seriously.  (When
>I make such comments, I don't expect that anyone reading 
>them will say, "Hmm, that diagnosis must be correct.")  When
>someone who has claimed in the past to be a mental health
>practicioner does so, though, more weight might be given
>to the comments.  Just how ethical is it for you to practice 
>psychology in newsgroups?

Observing the nature of a given behavior doesn't constitute a 
diagnosis (passive agressive behavior is not the same as Passive
Agressive Personality Disorder).  Nor does it imply that I am 
"practicing psychology" which, among other things, requires a 
license to do so (I'm a clinical social worker), a mutually 
agreed upon set of goals between provider and client (or his 
agent), a signed consent to treatment, and a contract which
describes the basis upon which services will be provided.

#Your implication is extremely prejudicial.  

>As is yours.

How so?  My comments didn't characterize an entire group of 
people in a negative way.  On the other hand, when someone
says "see your therapist" in an obviously insincere and flip-
pant manner, it implies that people in therapy are worthy of
ridicule.

#Are people in therapy somehow unworthy of your respect?

>Do you treat your clients this way?

With respect?  Yes.  It's offensive to imply that membership 
in that population is somehow demeaning.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 00:05:51 GMT


[Gee, Suxanne the Bitch is back, and just as "compassionate" as ever...]

>I'll bet you anything that the nurses (not to mention his parents) love him
>on a daily basis, and he knows it.   For you to second guess the "quality"
>of his life is nothing less than Gestapo tactics.   For you to suggest that
>your cousin would have reverted to killing her own baby is the biggest insult
>you could have possibly slung at her.

Gee, Suxanne, have you ever watched somebody die from MS?
                                                      AIDS?
                                                      CP?
                                                      PDD?

Fuck off and die, bitch.

I want you to know that my living will states specifically that once I go
unconscious, *NO* life-sustaining treatment is to be given to me.  There is
no way I'm going to put my loved ones through what I went through with Jerry.

>
>Beware lest somebody come along and second guess the "quality" of _your_
>lifestyle, Brian, and hence whether _your_ life is "worth living".

Gee, Suxanne, it's pretty obvious that _your_ life have been better given to
Alpha.  At least he had a grip on reality.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Vaginal-Mucus Breath.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=I am not "pro-life"... - Doug Holtsinger in article                          =
=                                          <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu>   =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Killing (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 23:57:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.222104.15005@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

}I said that the Constitution does not give any individual the
}right to kill another human being, except where abortion is
}concerned.  A person in the National Guard does not have a
}Constitutional right to kill other people.  

Why, it is as plain about that as it is about abortion...plainer, perhaps.
Certainly the constitution provides for the national defense, and
as a derivitive of that, the National Guard (Sleep Well -- Your National
Guard is -- I got in a bit of trouble for that one) has not only the 
right to kill other people, the government will also give you the 
weapons to do so.  When the commander-in-chief declares that 
<whatever> is a threat to the constitution, well, you're sworn to 
defend that.  Often times that has resulted in killing, a brand
of which we call "war."  You are also trained to obey orders, especially
those of a superior officer, and who could be more superior than the 
commander-in-chief?  (A "civilian" is not an answer that provokes much
mirth among those disposed to ask the question.  I got in trouble for
that one too.)

I have to chuckle a bit at these self righteous types who claim to
oppose killing, but, when pressed, stammer and yammer about how
some kind of killing either doesn't count or isn't relative to 
this discussion.  

To put it quite simply for Doug, who seems to need it put that way,
if you consider that the constitution protects a right to kill vis-a-vis
abortion then you must surely recognize those other other rights to 
kill.



--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
           Remember, behind most silver linings is a cloud...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: NYTimes article on Robertson letter
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:38:40 GMT

Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> Mark Kaufman writes
>>      I am continually amazed by the effortlessness with which those
>> self-proclaimed Christians, such as Pat Robertson lie. 

>    I don't mean to flame Mr. Kaufman, but after 2000 years of habitual
> dishonesty and hatred by the advocates of christainity, it is amazing
> that those not in faith should have to keep making this discovery.  It's
> like discovering Pittsburgh in the 20th century.  Part of the confusion
> may very well be liberal christainity.  "There are reasonable Quakers. 
> Therefore, christainity is not clearly evil."  I would suggest to
> secular people that Quakers are good and reasonable in spite of their
> christainity (which is fairly minimal anyway).

There's always been a dichotomy between spirituality and religious-ness.
Spirituality is individual; religious-ness is social.  There is a pressure
on the individual to conform when she/he is in a religious setting.  It's
unfortunate that some religious leaders have twisted Paul's words on faith
to mean faith in _them_ as spokespeople of God, not faith in God itself.

It also seems to me that the meaning of 'being religious' has changed to
include 'being willing to swallow a set of ideas whole with no critical
thought.'  By that definition, I guess I'm not particularly religious, even
though I go to church almost every Sunday.  I dunno, it's just my two cents
worth.  If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate others' input.

>    I would also suggest that the dishonesty of people like Pat Robertson
> or Jerry Falwall is not their worst trait.  Dishonesty can almost be
> amusing in some people.  (Perhaps this bboard would be improved if
> people called each other amusing rather than liars.)  Their worst trait
> is how they use hate to achieve power and money.

I agree, and I would venture to say that Falwell and Robertson are neither
'spiritual' or 'religious' for those reasons.

On a lighter note, I could go for calling Doug Holtsinger and Steve Chaney
amusing.  DearOldDoug certainly has been giving me cause to chuckle lately.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors ... perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:00:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.210212.5803@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

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

>> Are you willing to admit that 60 Minutes does not support your claims?

> No.  

Then are you claiming that 60 Minutes does support your claims? 

> If they said that there were only X number of doctors who specialized
> in heart transplants, I wouldn't assume that there were a number of
> additional doctors who specialized in, say, podiatry, but performed an
> occasional heart transplant on the side.

What does this have to do with the subject?  

>> > I note that you deleted the following, as you have every time you've
>> > been challenged.
>>
>> I'm just trying to delete extraneous material.
>>
>> >  If you can list more doctors that perform third tri abortions, or you can
>> >  document for me cases of women getting third-trimester abortions for
>> >  "frivolous" reasons, I would of course change my tune.  Unlike some, I
>> >  don't knowingly pass on lies.
>
>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 18:46:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes ...
> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
>>                  Think, people!  Take a hard look at these loving
>> parents that you call baby killers.  Do they really look like the
>> kind of people that like to murder children?
>
>
>  Why of course not, Mark.  And as long as they have apologists like you to
>salve their conscience about those destroyed potential lives, and to convince
>them "that it really isn't a person --yet" they won't have to think about it
>like that, either.

I've seen the term "potential" life used several times and I'm still not
sure what it is supposed to mean.  Could you please explain what a potential 
life is and its relevence?

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion