HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Subject: Re: NBC News Blackout on Black Senatorial Candidate
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:25:21 GMT

> Nyikos

>Last night, NBC Nightly News carried information about women and minority
>candidates.  It said that there were 11 women candidates for the US Senate,
>and over a hundred (I forget the exact number) for the House.  When it
>came the turn of Blacks, however, all we were told was that there were
>approximately 60 candidates for the House.

>But there is at least one Black candidate for the US Senate.  If there
>is only one, it is easy to see why NBC news chose not to even hint
>at his existence.

>Alan L. Keyes, the Republican Party candidate for the U.S. Senate
>seat from Maryland that is up for election, is pro-life.  To make
>matters worse for him as far as media coverage is concerned, he
>is running against an incumbent who is a woman and is radically
>pro-choice.  

So we are to believe, on the face of such flimsy evidence, that NBC Nightly
News will not cover anti-choice candidates?  That NBC Nightly News will not
cover anyone who is anti-choice?  That the entire NBC network will not give
air time to anti-choice causes?  That the news media in general are all a
bunch of raving liberal fanatics out to set an agenda for the entire nation?
What is your point?

Do you know anything about Lyndon LaRouche?  If not, you ought to find out
about him; I think you might like him.  One writer sums up one of his
"theories": "[Some LaRouche supporters] chatted about how drag-queen Henry
Kissinger was in collusion with Malthusian zero-growth proponents at the
Wharton School to destroy technological growth in Ibero-America while Roy
Cohn deliberately kept gay bathhouses open to ensure British hegemony over
the Third World." *

Check it out.

* From "The Skeptical Eye" in _The Humanist_, May/June 1992, p. 37, by
  Brian Siano.

-- 
"Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A RISK IS A RISK IS A RISK....
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:16:50 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1qh1+km@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

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

>>In article <ra_134b@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

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

>>>> This analogy fails because no person is intentionally killed during 
>>>> a medical procedure, other than abortion.

>>> This statement is not correct.

>> Oh sorry, I should have said, ``In my opinion, this analogy fails..''.

> But then you'd have looked pretty silly, not giving a reason WHY
> the analogy fails.

But I did give a reason why the analogy fails, you just
don't agree with it.

> -rocker
>
>MOMMY!  Dougie's trying to harass me off the net!

Stay calm rocker, if you don't support restrictions on abortion, 
Keegan won't harass you.   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter against "Lady" Adrienne
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:16:59 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->Jim Keegan has asked me to document how Susan Garvin is doing
->her intentional best to piss pro-lifers off.  Susan has been 
->good ;-) enough to provide a bit of documentation.

if she has, it certainly wasn't included in the
material you posted. 

i'm glad to see you responding to my requests. 
does this mean i'll soon be seeing your apology to 
adrienne for your false accusation of forgery?

	Penn Jillette described the smiley as 
	"the hateful :) which means 'just kidding' 
	and is used by people who would dot their i's
	with little circles and should have their eyes 
	dotted with Drano."
		San Francisco Chronicle, 10/06/92

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- pro-whatever)
Subject: Look it Up (formerly: Jay Stein stops insinuating...)
Summary: That'll teach me to back down when I was right in the first place
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:12:56 GMT

What: <1992Nov5.221657.7618@cs.yale.edu>
Who:  rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)

>> = Doug Holtsinger to Jay

>>Gosh, Jay Stein says that a plurality of pro-lifers condone
>>abortion clinic bombings.   He even asked a "huge" number of
>>them to support his conclusion.  I'm really convinced now.
>I'm trying to figure out what Jay MEANS by a "plurality".

From Webster's Ninth New Collegiate:  plurality (n):  a large number.

What's to be confused about?
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
                                               \
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Date: 13 Nov 1992 08:13:56 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov13.131652.23595@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>Which makes these remarks of your's
>about deletions and Adrienne purely gratuitous assaults.

Sorry to contradict you, Dean, but if you will recall, I'm a "hypocritical
ingrate" (oh, where is that pesky attribute.  Oh well, I'm sure some of
you recall this one), so it isn't likely to be a gratuitious assault....

>That's the Dan whose quote you attribute to
>Adrienne because you just have this thing for her and, having falsely
>accused her of forgery, rather than apologize and admit your mistake,
>you are now trying to bluster your embarrassed, stupid butt out
>of it by attacking Adrienne every chance you get.

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:39:26 GMT

In article <BxJ5FH.n51@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu>, akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >I am curious as to whether the referendum was a result of
> >Maryland having Initiative and Referendum (I don't know if
> >they have it or not) or whether it was an idea of the
> >legislature's.  I am also curious, if they have I&R, whether
> >the initiative was undertaken originally by pro-choice or
> >pro-life supporters.  It would be extremely ironic, and I
> >admit I doubt it happened this way, if it were an initiative
> >undertaken by pro-life supporters in an attempt to get the
> >public on record against abortion.
> 
> The referendum was on a law the State legislature had passed for the
> purpose of preserving (most of) Roe v. Wade in Maryland in case the
> Supreme Court overturned Roe.  The pro-life people petitioned to have
> the law placed on the ballot.  A "yes" vote on the ballot question was
> a vote in favor of the law the legislature had recently passed.
> 
> My understanding of the Maryland constitution is that any bill can be
> referred to the voters by petition *except* a revenue bill.

Thank you, Keith.  This is extremely ironic.

Looks like the pro-life contingent that pushed for the referendum
was hoist on its own petard.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 16:26:18 GMT


In article <1992Nov3.204620.2480@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
 
>I value both lives and as I've stated in an earlier post I havbe now come
>to the conclusion(although I don't like it) that if there is a choice
>between the mother's life and baby's life I will grant the mother an abortion
>to save her life 
 
Now don't all you women folk just feel privileged as all hell.  Jeffrey
has actually decided that he will allow you to live if the circumstances
meet his criteria.  Ain't he one swell guy?  Despite his strong moral 
beliefs, he has decided to grant y'all life.  I can hear a big loud 
Thank you to Jeffrey now.

>-Jeff Price
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:18:10 GMT

In article <Bx84M7.5w@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu>, akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
> 
> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
> 
> >I wonder if anyone is going to try a challenge of Maryland's law,
> >Question 6 on the ballot which we just approved 62% to 38% :-).
> 
> They would lose.  Even Justice Rehnquist, in his dissent in Roe v.
> Wade, agreed that the States were not *required* to restrict
> abortions.  Maryland's law could be overturned only if the Supreme
> Court ruled that a fetus has Constitutional protections under the
> Fourteenth Amendment.  Of the Justices now on the Court, the only ones
> who might conceivably do so are Scalia and Thomas, and even that is
> doubtful.  (As far as I know, neither has said anything about it.)

Renqhuist's position is always pro-states against central
rule.  That was the basis of his dissent from Roe v Wade
in 1972.  I think, as a basic philosophy, decentralized
power is a sincere position of the Chief Justice and not
something he used to dissent in the RvW decision.  If
all fifty states passed laws codofying Roe v Wade into
law, Renqhuist would likely see that as appropriate.

Dean Kaflowitz

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47324 alt.abortion.inequity:4982
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 9 Nov 1992 09:22:29 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <BxFCx6.B6B@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>WHO DO YOU THINK ends up paying, Will?
>>The taxpayer.  Now, I don't know about you, but *I* am a taxpayer, and I'm
>>not terribly excited about paying, not only for my children, but for ALL
>>the OTHER children out there in the world.  I don't make enough money for
>>that.
>
>Well who the hell do you think will be paying for 1.6 million abortions
>per year inside of 12 months?  (actually, I tend to think the abortion rate
>will increase under William Jefferson Blythe, but let's stick with a
>verifiable figure).  Funny how you complain about taxpayer's wallets when
>it comes to little kids, but you don't have a qualm about those wallets
>if they happen to be paying for body parts in a garbage can.

Uh, Steven, maybe you weren't looking, but abortion costs about $300-500 a
pop.  Which is hardly comparable to even ONE MONTH'S child support, be it
payable by a man, a woman, or 10 taxpayers.  Give the taxpayers the choice,
and it'll be MANDATED abortion for everybody who cannot prove that they
have a big trust fund put aside for little Joey.

I'm not precisely sure what you are arguing here:  That, since abortions
are paid ($300-500) for occasionally via tax payer money, that we SHOULD,
or that we SHOULDN'T let men off the hook?

Now, think it through before you respond.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Re: Myelination and Fetal Brain Development (Criteria for Personhood
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 14:33:43 GMT

In article <nyikos.721337097@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

|> 
|> I also happen to know that premature births can happen any time, and
|> with modern medical techniques the offspring past 24 weeks now have 
|> a better than even chance of survival.
|> 

Typically, infants born prior to 28 weeks of gestation are refered to
as salvagable, not that they have a better then even chance of survival.
They are kept in an ICU and require termendous amounts of care and life
support. The rule of thumb is that for every week of gestation, you avoid
2-3 weeks in an ICU. That is why these are refered to as crisis pregnancies
and salvagable infants.

All extremely premature infants face serious health problems and the 
very real possibility of mental and physical handicaps.

-- 
--Bruce

"Truth is ultimately a philosophical concept,...,
 and standards of truth are adequate for practical
 purposes if they are substantially more reliable 
 then the system undergoing evaluation"
				C. E. Metz
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Peter Nyikos, Liar Holding Butthead position for Forced Birth!
Date: 8 Nov 92 18:41:55 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <nyikos.720829120@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes the usual to me (>>):

>BTW you were guilty of failing reading comprehension
> when you said I called you a butthead.  I said you
>had made "buttheaded comments."

So, sorry.  You hold a buttheaded position in favor of forced
pregnancy.  Is that better?

>>I believe you are mistaken about my using this particular terminology.
>>Butthead is not a frequent insult of mine.
>
>And I never used the term in my life before I used it in the post to
>which you allude in your first message.  It
>is an asinine term, like so many I throw back in the face of the
>pro-choicers I first heard them from.  I would never use it against
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>anyone who did not first use it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Bottom line: You have just lied.  You used it to characterize my
position even though I had never used the term.  If you think I did,
provide the proof by showing it in a post prior to the one where I
responded to your characterization of my position.

SJM
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:37:25 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov5.223732.26199@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
>In article <1d98rjINN20n@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>ATTENTION!  CROSSED WIRE ALERT!   
>>
>>I'm not in favour of anti-abortion legislation Brian.  Carry on.
>>In article <1992Nov4.152704.17296@netcom.com: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>[Lots deleted of Frank and Brian debating fetal personhood.]
[...]
>Well I know I am late to the party, but I wanted to jump in here too.
>Frank, when you talk about recognizing a z/e/f as a legal person I 

[ knockout punches to z/e/f as legal persons from Sarah deleted ... ]

Well I agree with you of course.  I got a little carried away there and
bumped into "legal" personhood, when I was really looking to talk about
"actual" personhood.  Old habits die hard :-(

I guess what I am trying to do is rattle the cage of those who think that
z/e/f's "don't exist".  I'd like to suggest that there is no shame in valuing
something for its potential.  Duracell got rich on lousy batteries, and
that's just potential energy.

>Sarah McCabe

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbates@encore.com (John W. Bates)
Subject: Re: a woman'right, not a common good..
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:47:40 GMT
	<1992Nov7.222723.15802@ncsu.edu>

In article <1992Nov7.222723.15802@ncsu.edu> 
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Oct31.130332.4612@verifone.com> 
> ron_s@verifone.com writes:

>> It is not the province or business of government to legislate
>> morality, 

> So I take it you're an anarchist.  Say goodbye to murder, rape,
> and robbery laws.   

Gee, Doug, I thought you were an atheist. Can you explain to me the
source of your morality, and why it is *so* right that you would enforce
it upon all members of a society?

Or do you just know that you are right?

> Doug Holtsinger

John
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: When will Keegan begin harassing Cochran about his prochoice label?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:50:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov05.041312.63842@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1992Nov3.164133.5451@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov3.010429.12789@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct30.190619.16180@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Oct29.014024.14540@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>And before you start salivating over that bit of info, Doug, let me
>>>>>tell what sort of *legal restrictions* I support wrt abortion:
>>>>>
>>>>>-------------------------Start Of Legal Restrictions---------------------------
>>>>>1)The pregnant woman must voluntarily ask the doctor to perform one.
>>>>>---------------------------End Of Legal Restrictions---------------------------
>>
>>>>Yeah, right, Keith. This implies that, prior to your "point" of viability, the
>>>>woman DOESN'T have to ask the doctor to perform one, i.e. that abortions can
>>>>legally be performed on her without her consent. Is this what you _really_
>>>>want to say?
>>>
>>>Kevin, did you miss the line that says, "Start Of Legal Restrictions"?
>>>My *PERSONAL* opinions and the *LAWS* I would vote for/support are two
>>>different things.
>>
>>I will note for the record here, that Keith Cochran has already admitted to
>>supporting one, albeit not very burdensome, legal restriction on abortion.
>>I support *NONE*. I therefore consider him closer to Pro-life than myself.
>
>Are you then stating that you are in favor of forced abortions?  

Did I say that? Did I imply that?

>Is this what
>you _really_ want to say?  Or do you in fact support the same "restriction"
>that Keith does?

I see no need for that specific legislation. Forced abortions are already
illegal (assault), and so are abortions accidentally performed by physicians
(malpractice). Given that, I challenge you or Cochran to demonstrate that 
there is a social need for this legislation. As for the "downside", I have, 
in a separate post, enumerated many abstract and procedural problems with 
such a piece of legislation. It has also been noted that this legislation 
might forbid abortions on pregnant women in comas, even when their wishes wrt
abortion were made clear prior to going into a coma, simply because they
cannot comply with the "must ask" part of the law.

Do _you_ support Cochran's legislative agenda, Larry?

								- Kevin
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: DOD and RvW yet again
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:13:09 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>Why hasn't anyone addressed the documentation which I have
>provided showing that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-
>on-demand?

Because it quite clearly isn't.

Are you proposing that women should be denied abortions regardless of
medical necessity?  Do you think women should be killed in order to
save the fetus?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:14:17 GMT

In article <92311.175856ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>In article <1992Nov2.032636.29543@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:
>>In article <92305.065719ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:

>>>No.  Because you frequently describe the behaviour of
>>>Mr. Keegan while stating you have not read his posts

I have read some of Keegan's posts when my newsreader skips over a
posts and I go "I don't remember reading that one!" and - N back to
it....

>>Ever hear of second-hand quotes, Ms. Birmingham? Killfiles are FAR from a
>>perfect mechanism.

>Mr. Darcy are you suggesting one should base their
>opinion of someone on "second-hand quotes"?
>Are you suggesting that I should have based my
>opinions of you only on what I saw written by,
>say, Trish O Tuama or DAC or Susan Garvin, perhaps?

Linda dear, I think it's significant that Keegan is calling me
"anti-choice", when he conceded early on in the debate that my
position was no more like the pro-lifers' than the pro-choicers.
Second-hand quotes are sufficient to give me that much information.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: What am I?
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 07:37:30 GMT

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

	[explanation of Linda's stance deleted]


>So what am I?

My Goddess, Linda!

It appears that you're me!

               -rocker
                and whadda ya suppose the odds are on that, eh?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Religious Services for Weaponry
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:44:45 GMT

margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

] In <1992Nov4.182900.15276@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >Nothing More stoopid than brining a knife to a pistol shoot....
] 
] Is "brining a knife" some sort of bizarre naval baptismal ceremony for cutlery?

Larry,

Actually I am glad that you mention this.....

Its a Religious Service that has to do with
shortening the tip of the blade as a sign
of moral purity and seperation from the
worldly ones who are not called of God.


ciao
drieux




-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, and the Other Two Called for Air Support.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.misc