HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 15:39:25 GMT

Galen Hekhuis suggests the following difference between slavery and
abortion.

    Without law there is no slavery.
    Without law there is abortion.

I am not inclined to agree with the former statement.  All that is
needed for slavery is for one person to assert enough influence over
another to place them in a position of servitude or bondage, divested
of freedom and personal rights.  This influence can be derived from
the force of law, but it may come from other sources.  I can conceive
of a person with a gun making a slave of someone without a gun, even
in the absence of laws enforcing slavery.

One might specifically choose to define slavery by law only, and then
point out that abortion is not defined by law, but to do so would be
to beg the question.

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:

>Furthermore, it seems you are being somewhat equivocal about your use
>of the word `some.'

(The context here is my use of "some" in comparing abortion and
slavery; e.g. "A fetus is considered property by some" and "A slave
was considered property by some".)

I appeal to a standard usage of the word "some": An indefinite and
unspecified quantity.

My next paragraph diverges from the main topic.

While the burden of proof with regard to the slavery analogy remains
with me, I must call for support for an assertion from Mr. Woodyatt.
He suggests most abortion abolitionists do not consider the fetus a
person.  I find this statement incredible, as every anti-abortionist
with which I have ever conversed cites the personhood of the fetus as
a basis for their position.  This is true even those who would allow
exceptions for rape.  To be sure, I find the latter position
inconsistent.  However, inconsistency does not preclude people from
holding a position.  Thus, I would like to see something concrete to
back Mr. Woodyatt's assertion.  I shall remain skeptical in the
meantime.

(I note in passing the Republican party has removed this inconsistency
from their platform.)


                                  Gregg M. Skinner


P.S. I've noticed that there is also a "Greg Skinner" posting to this
newsgroup.  Care should be taken not to confuse this poster with
myself (Gregg Skinner).


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: a new .sig for PHoney
Date: 31 Dec 92 23:31:17 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

In article <1992Dec29.131937.11625@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
	decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

-> You are a fine example, "Doctor" Nyikos, of why first
-> cousins shouldn't marry.

this looks like the first, great, PHoney .sig.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52857 talk.religion.misc:24526 alt.atheism:24261
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 23 Dec 92 21:00:48 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Dec22.212341.496@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes: 
>
>>> What are laws if not an attempt to force majority morals on the minority?
>
>> Self interest.  [...]  neither you nor I will be harmed by an abortion.
>
>This is why pro-choicers must condone infanticide.

Rubbish. I don't advocate a law against your lying about your golf
score, but that doesn't mean I condone it.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: A question for Suzanne.
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:15:43 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
>From article by hsims@vax.clarku.edu:
>>How do you feel about my father getting a tissue transplant from dead aborted 
>>fetuses?  
>
>Were I he, I would refuse it.  To me there is a large difference between
>receiving a transplant from someone who died naturally, and receiving one
>from someone who was killed specifically to provide me with it.   You say
>it was to be aborted anyway?  Still, I myself would refuse to profit from
>the deliberate killing of someone else.

Hmmm??

Enjoy your dinner last night?  Live in a nice house?  Good thing that
the land it's on wasn't taken from anyone else.  Or that anyone was
killed so that you could live there and enjoy dinner.

BTW, many native Americans [still] living in your part of the country?
And Arizona (or is it New Mexico?) _is_ still part of the US?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 04:04:03 GMT

In article <1h4tcgINNoo8@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
> [...]
>
>>You didn't state your claims as a BELIEFS, however; you stated them as 
>>**FACTS**. In one place, you said [...]
>
>You will note, won't you, clueless twit, the line above that says:
>I have freely admitted to this net, and to Don, that I do not have the
>archive to repost what I claimed that Don said.

Admitting lack of substantiation is not the same as retraction, Adrienne.
Confession != reparation.

Stop scrambling for an easy way out -- retract your lie about Don.

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52813 alt.society.civil-liberty:7040
From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Reproductive Freedom
Date: 23 Dec 92 17:49:40 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <1992Dec21.173915.4573@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:

># It's not so much the left don't want the government to use force against
># people, just not them, eh?
>
>You wanna keep the pseudoanarchosyndicalist claptrap out of
>talk.abortion so you don't arouse the ire of honest-to-God
>non-right-wing civil-libertarians?
>
>Arguments over whether the government should collect taxes, while a
>fun topic for intellectual dick size warz, is a waste of bandwidth on
>t.a.  However, if you want to argue about why government ought not to
>spend a portion of public funds on family planning services (including
>abortion), then go right ahead -- I love to see people make fools of
>themselves.
>
>
>-- 
>+---------------------------+  ``Man has not a single right which is
>| J H Woodyatt              |  the product of anything but might.''
>| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |                           -- Mark Twain
>+---------------------------+  

Touchy, touchy, eh? Goddamn, it is amazing to me to see how angry
people get when you try to take something away from them that never was
theirs. A fool of myself, for being an individualist, for saying I have a 
right to my own life?

A waste of bandwidth for saying everyone has a right to be free from
initiatory force, free from the meddlings of Big Nanny?

That quote of yours just goes to prove my point. The quote is wrong.
The concept of individual rights entails the subjugation of might
to *right*, the right to one's own life.

Funny, I don't feel like I am making a fool of myself, but you 
are free to say so.

Amazing.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: an example of dodie's "honesty"
Date: 28 Dec 92 13:01:04 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->>>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->>>>> Given your past statements on the FOCA, would it be 
->>>>> a fair statement to say that 'Susan Garvin supports 
->>>>> abortion legislation which Doug Holtsinger does not'?

->>>> it would be as fair, and as dishonest, as
->>>> most of the material you post.

->>> Glad we can agree.

->> it was self-evident. i don't think anyone would argue
->> that your posts are honest.

->then why did you make an issue out of it? 

do you think it's redundant to point out your
dishonesty, dodie?

susan garvin is right, dodie. see your therapist. this
is a dangerous time of year, particularly for those
with your problems.
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis shows his expertise at innuendo, again
Date: 31 Dec 92 02:13:58 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <nyikos.725748406@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Dec28.063751.2980@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>>In <nyikos.725147807@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>>In the meantime, I hope you can help me correct an entry in
>>>Dr. Willke's _Abortion: Questions and Answers_.  Here it is, as
>>>it appears on p. 108 of the Fourth edition.

>>Perhaps I can help.  How about adding the following note:
>>   Of course, it should be noted that is from a British journal from
>>   16 years ago, and describes a problem with techniques that are probably
>>   no longer used in the US.  There is *no* evidence of problems with
>>   later childbearing among women who have an early abortion performed by
>>   the most common method used *today* - vacuum aspiration.

>Vacuum aspiration predates 1976.  As for the *no* evidence part, is there
>*any* evidence that it IS different today? 

Peter, there is no evidence as to the situations the abortions were performed
for. After all, a termination on a healthy woman is quite likely to have
different sequelae than a termination performed on someone with cardiac
problems.

>Can you give me a reference?  Please don't pull a Mark Cochran on me
>("Any good medical journal."), nor a Nadja Adolf (go to the library and
>dig it up yourself).

I'll pull it on you. Peter, do your own research. You supposedly have a
Post Hole Digger in math - so I am sure that somewhere along the way you
learned to use abstracting journals and reference materials. Or, go ask
the biosciences reference librarian at the nearest academic library.

>After all, you are the one who, by innuendo, have created the impression
>that things are DIFFERENT today.

After all, we all know that medical techniques haven't changed at all in the
past 16 - 20 years....
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:52:19 GMT

<nyikos.725573716@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
><1157@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>...showing absolutely *no* shame about quoting things out of context:
>>In article <1992Dec24.023729.15109@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
...
>PS  I am not making all these anti-Garvin posts today because I have a
>fixation on her, but because:
>
>1.  She throws so much shit in talk.abortion, I'm afraid a good fraction
>of it sticks every day.
>
>2.  Since she is at least one of {pro-choice, pro-abortion, pro-abortionist}
>it will take a mountain of evidence to get a majority of regulars in this
>newsgroup to take charges of her mendacity at all seriously, while a tiny
>smidgin of evidence from her, or even her "good-as-her-bond" word appears
>enough to satisfy:
>
>Mark Cochran   Keith Cochran   Patrick Humphrey  Dean Kaflowitz
>Steve Novak   Steven Mezias  J H Woodyatt  Jim Keegan   Brian Kauffman
>Dan King   Mark Ira Kauffman   drieux   Larry Margolis   Chris Lyman
>Ron Bense   Lefty   Gordon Storga ...

Susan has proved to be one of the few people who are generally logical and
well-thought out in her responses and statements.  That coupled with the
fact that she isn't trying to get laws passed that oppress people makes
her much easier to believe.  Although she has been known to get after some
people a little too much it's no big deal.  Most people who've been here
any length of time do the same.

If Susan was to post something that conflicted with my experience of
knowledge I would correct her.  She hasn't as far as I'm aware.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Petey Ny, check reality, try again
Keywords: risks, surgical procedure
Date: 23 Dec 92 00:23:06 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Abortion providers do have the same responsibility to provide
information to their patients as other doctors do, Mark.  The
court cases that PHoney cites don't have anything to do with
informed consent in medical terms - they have to do with a
stae-written script detailing the abortion procedure, fetal
development, possible complications, and other things.  These 
state speeches are designed to discourage abortion, not to 
inform anyone.

If Nyikos thinks that quotes from dissents are relevant,
then I'll give him one back.  (It includes part of the
text from the Thornburgh decision, rather than the dissent.)
The following is from Blackmun's dissent in PP v. Casey:

"Thornburgh invalidated biased patient-counseling requirements
virtually identical to the one at issue here.  What we said of
those requirements fully applies in this case:
-the listing of agencies in the printed Pennsylvania form presents
serious problems;  it contains names of agencies that well may be
out of step with the needs of the particular woman and thus places
the physician inan awkward position and infringes upon his or her
professional responsibilities.  Forcing the physician or counselor
to present the materials and the list to the woman makes him or
her in effect an agent of the State in treating the woman and 
places his or her imprimatur upon both the materials and the list. 
All this is, or comes close to being, state medicine imposed
upon the woman, not the professional medical guidance she seeks,
and it officially structures - as it obviously was intended to -
the dialogue between the woman and her physician.
-The requirements...that the woman be advised that medical 
assistance benefits may be available, and that the father is
responsible for financial assistance in the support of the child
similarly are poorly disguised elements of discouragement for
the abortion decision.  Much of this ...,for many patients, would be
irrelevant and inappropriate.  For a patient with a life-threatening
pregnancy, the 'information' in its very rendition may be cruel
as well as destructive of the physician-patient relationship.  As
any experienced social worker or other counselor knows, theoretical 
financial responsibility does not equate with fulfillment...  
Under the guise of informed consent, the Act requires the 
dissemination of information that is not relevant to such
consent, and, thus, it advances no legitimate state interest. -
476 U.S., at 763.
-This type of compelled information is the antithesis of informed
consent, id., at 764, and goes far beyond merely describing the 
general subject matter relevant to the woman's decision.  -That
the court does not, and surely would not, compel similar disclosure
of every possible peril of necessary surgery or of simple
vaccination, reveals the anti-abortion character of the statute
and its real purpose. Ibid."

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Date: 22 Dec 92 15:32:07 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = (David Anderson) writes:

>>>Let's limit the net to worthwhile discussions, ok?
>>>nuff said.

>>You have a right to express your opinion; I have the right to tell
>>you to fuck off and let a free forum be just that.

>>I'm enjoying Heather's mutilation of Finkelstein's stupidity.  His views
>>on impregnated rape victims rivals Schweikert, Forgach and Liar
>>Holtsinger for fascist hatred.

>I missed them all, my netserver having been deaf for over a week, and
>behind several days before it went deaf.

That's pretty convenient.  The above posting you're quoting was made the same
day as Finkelstein's misogynic ravings.  Try a little harder to find a copy,
Petie.

Next you'll be accusing me of using the word "fascist" at the drop of a hat.

>I do know that Steve Novak uses the word "fascist" at the drop of a hat,...

Damn, I'm good.

>...having used it in the first follow-up I ever saw to one of my posts.

Back when you pretended you were neutral on the subject?  Your quick decline
into raving anti-abortionism marked you as one of those dishonest pro-lifers
with no credibility, which impression has deepened since among most t.a.
readers.  

We could take a poll and find out.  

You posting your SAT scores (haw haw) additionally marked you as a buffoon.
I'll bet you still squirm thinking of that idiocy.

>I countered with a post quoting from _Babies for Burning_ which showed
>the henchman for a group of abortionists to be an avid fascist, and the
>abortionists to share his views.

If I ever saw this quote, I would have ignored it.  It's ludicrous, like you,
Petey Honey.  

It's gonna be fun watching Sue Garvin embarrassing you again.  Welcome 
back..."Professor".

>PS Steve also begins to rival Lefty for the intensity of his undocumented
>flames (easily beating out any pro-lifer's flames, documented or otherwise)
>if not their volume.

Oh, you're just jealous.  But (gawrsh) thanks anyway.   

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52714 soc.men:21681 alt.dads-rights:3082
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:09:20 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Dec22.204333.25008@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes ...
>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>Hmmph.  Sounds like the old line "women are weaker than men and must
>>>be cared for and protected by men."

>>Hmmph.  Sounds like you amuse yourself in the privacy of your own room
>>by making up arguments that you want to attack, rather than dealing with
>>the arguments your opponents have actually raised.

>That too.  :-)
>But you didn't comment on the point I made that child support 
>and custody have nothing to do with biology or gender.

Should I?  Was your comment responsive to the issue originally raised?
Am I obliged to respond to each thing you post?
Generally, I don't respond to points if I don't feel like responding to
points.  That might be because I agree, or because I disagree.  If I don't
respond to your point, you get to pick (-:.

>>Oh, by the way, your 'so often it's nearly a cliche' could use a little
>>evidence.  We'd all really love to see some information that would give
>>and idea on how big this problem really is.  Might motivate some of us
>>to do something about it.
>
>Three examples, right off the top of my head, and ones you've probably
>read about yourself.  Granted, they are specific examples and don't
>necessarily indicate a trend, but they do indicate that such
>situations are not rare.

Examples don't cut it.

I can just as easily post 6 counter-examples.

From your three examples, and my 6 counter-examples, does one conclude
that the problem you mention is only 1/2 as important as the problem I
mention?  I don't think so.

No, evidence means useful data, not stories someone told you.  Not the
most recent headlines.

Please, try again.

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Okay, who sent the anonymous e-mail?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:31:05 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <1992Dec26.185458.4960@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1161@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> >
> >[There's a discussion in alt.rush-limbaugh about people being
> >"kicked out" of unmoderated newsgroups.]
> >
> >In article <1992Dec24.231507.26670@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) said:
> > [.. deletions ..]
> >>almost exclusively.  Most of my articles had responses telling me how
> >>stupid I was or thatI should leave the net until I 'learn proper procedures',
> >>similar to what happened to Chaney and others, no matter how logical or
> >>polite my postings
> >>
> >>   No one kicked me out either, I left voluntarily as well.  I had gotten
> >>tired of the pointless flaming and the occasional nasty e-mail, sent
> >>anonymously of course.
> >>
> >>Simon
> 
> I remember Dean Kaflowitz admitting in talk.abortion that 
> he had sent e-mail to Simon Booth suggesting that he leave
> the net, or words to that effect.  Perhaps Mr. Booth and
> Kaflowitz would care to elaborate. 

Close.  Gee, good thing I have some time to spend on this
today or I'd have missed all the lovely misrepresentation
and flames.

I suggested that since Booth was incapable of writing anything
worthwhile, and likewise incapable of getting nearly anything
simply right no matter how simple the matter, he ought to
attend more to his studies as it would be more profitable
for him and everyone else than if he posted to the net.  As
I recall I was making at that time a sincere suggestion since
I was beginning to feel very sorry for the boy.  He really was
making the most awful fool of himself.  When he left I was
hopeful that he had taken my suggestion seriously and was
spending the time profitably.  I see from the newsgroups
involved in this that he just went off to play with the
dittoheads.

Dean Kaflowitz

"Yeah, bringing that Amazon enclave of women to America would just 
spoil everything.  I'd prefer to have them stay in the Amazon, 
so that I could go live them there." - Reverend Doug Holtsinger
 





Newsgroups: talk.abortion