HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:56:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.025135.10239@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

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

>>In article <1992Aug27.213923.7964@rigel.econ.uga.edu> 
>>mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:

>>> Under Roe, ALL ABORTIONS AFTER 24 WEEKS OF GESTATION MAY BE PROHIBITED BY
>>> EACH STATE, WITH THE SINGLE EXCEPTION OF THOSE PERFORMED TO SAVE THE LIFE
>>> OF THE MOTHER.

This is not correct.  Roe v. Wade does not permit the states 
to prohibit abortions which are necessary to preserve the woman's 
health, where the term ``health'' is given a broad interpretation.
 
>>> Therefore, EVERY state may enact legislation requiring a physician to
>>> attempt to preserve the life of a fetus that is 24 weeks' gestation or 
>>> older.

No, this is not correct either.  Legislation to require a physician to 
employ the abortion technique which would provide the best opportunity
for the fetus to be aborted alive was struck down by the Supreme
Court in Colautti v. Franklin (1979).  

> Her statement that the state *may* enact legislation requiring a
> physician to attempt to preserve the life of a fetus that is 24 weeks
> gestation or older is correct.  

You are arguing semantics here.  No state may *enforce* legislation
which requires the physician to attempt to preserve the life of a
fetus that is 24 weeks gestation or older, because that legislation
was struck down by the Supreme Court in Colautti v. Frankin.  States
may *enact* ANY type of legislation, but that doesn't mean that it's
Constitutional.

However I had assumed that her second statement was in reference to Roe, 
since her first statement begins with "Under Roe,...", and her second 
statement begins with "Therefore,..." (i.e. "Therefore [under Roe],...").  

Feel free to argue semantics, but it won't change the fact that the 
state cannot enforce legislation which would require a physician to 
preserve the life of a viable fetus during an abortion. 

> The fact that Colautti v. Franklin
> struck down a law requiring this because the law did not clearly
> indicate that the woman was more important than the fetus in no
> way invalidates this.

That's not the reason why the law was struck down.  It was struck
down because the law was vague.  

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


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33518 alt.flame:12344
From: levin@bbn.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: And Now, You're A Coatrack!! Was: without even being asked ....
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:32:39 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
|In <2a9ac9b7.crud@crud.mn.org> trashman@crud.mn.org (Barry Schwartz) writes:

|>In article <1992Aug15.224854.14033@csus.edu>
|>        chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
|>]  {omitted}
|>It is a shame to lose one's mind.

|It is a shame to lose one's self-image... eh trashman?

I'm sure Barry would agree that it's a shame that Chaney lost his
self-image with his mind.
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: 1-900-fone-sex  (was: myths about PP or something)
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:17:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

> Dean Kaflowitz
>> Propeller Pinhead

>> Yeah, that's the only way Kathi Mills could ever get it. If talking
>> about sex IS sex, that is. 

>Now that is what I call unintended humor.  The little boy who
>pretends he's an airplane making "I'm superior" noises at the hottest
>redhead to pull on long black boots.

Um, long black boots?  Stilettos, maybe ...

>And she's cuter than a roomful of Care Bears.

I thank you very much for that ... a pleasant surprise!

>> That's why I KILLfile'd that poster child in the first place. 

>Not her loss, I can tell you that.

Agreed.

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

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 14:22:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <Bu1FJD.F5L@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> In article <1992Sep03.215609.14780@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
> >In  <Bu09ut.Es5@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
> Referring to "enforce" defined as "strengthen":
> >> In which case, it is natural to conclude that a law permitting abortion
> >> "enforces" the belief that fetuses are not persons/children/human-lives.
> >
> >Not really, because it's a religious belief.  For example,
> >
> >> And yes, our laws do "enforce" (to a much lesser extent) the belief
> >> that killing cattle is not wrong.
> >
> >Do you really believe that someone who believes cattle to be holy changes
> >their mind because it's legal here?  I don't; I think they're more likely
> >to see those who eat steak as sinners.
>
> I don't have any basis for making such a judgement.

Well, let's see...  Abortion has been legal in this country for 20 years.
Have all the people that think it's wrong changed their minds?

> One example that
> does come to mind is that eating pork is legal; if it were illegal,
> perhaps fewer Jewish people would eat pork.  Hence, the legality
> of eating pork does tend to strengthen the belief that eating pork
> is not immoral/unholy/sinful.  (This strays a bit, since it's not
> that pigs are holy but that eating them is religiously banned.)

Actually, it strays a lot, because many Jews believe that it was
banned for health reasons, and that now that those health reasons
no longer apply, eating it is OK.  This has nothing to do with the
legality of it.  Kosher means "clean" or "fit to eat".  Someone who
feels that modern food-preparation techniques make it safe to eat foods
that were previously considered "trefe" (dirty) would feel the same way
even if it wasn't legal to eat those foods.  (In some cases, even if it
were - you'll take my lobster when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
:-)

Also, note that Jews don't feel it necessary for non-Jews to conform to
Jewish law, so they wouldn't be calling those eating non-kosher foods
"sinners" anyway.

> And, beliefs regarding abortion are not necessarily religious.
> My beliefs regarding abortion are certainly not; they arise from
> consideration of morals, philosophical principles of justice and equity,
> pragmatism, and a bit of scientific experience (research on reproduction).

You mean they weren't forced on you by the legality of abortion?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Observations
Organization: Clark University
Date: 2 SEP 92 17:14:38 GMT

In a previous article, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) wrote:

>If you wish to murder your children, that should be your right, so long
>as the father agrees.

Holy shit.  Can I nominate this for scariest post of the week?  And I thought 
this guy was pro-life! 

>John
>stevens@uswest.com

                             .... Heather.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: DOES THE NUMBER THIRTEEN RING A BELL?
Keywords: You knew I'd do this
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:02:54 GMT

In <1992Aug25.113424.15235@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>In article <nyikos.714686947@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>}Keywords: You knew I'd do this

>Well, I was going to say "If you knew I was going to do this, I didn't let
>you down this time."  That didn't fit too well on one line, and I thought
>it too many words for the "Kewords:" slot, so I trimmed it to "You knew
>I'd do this."  If you think that I used "You" to refer personally to 
>Peter Nyikos,

Since the actual message was addressed to me, and since you used "You"
in the message, I think the assumption was a reasonable one.

> then there is indeed some basis to the following comments:

>}This time it is Galen who is assuming too much about me. [That brings the
>}score from 3-0 to 3-1, still in his favor.]  I haven't been around long
>}enough to catch on to his habits.

>I don't even know what game we are playing, I don't even know the rules,
>and I'm still ahead!  Things that make you go "hmmmmmm...."

The game: making unwarranted assumptions about someone.  Point system:
each time you make an unwarranted assumption about someone, you have to 
award him/her one point.

>[I claim, yet again, to speak for the unborn.  I have also been known 
>to speak for the dead (avoid cremation!) and various fish, among 
>other things...]

>}Since you are speaking for the "unborn", it seems only fair that I
>}let Steve Novak do some of the speaking for me.

>}From a 20 Aug. followup of his along the "Mirror for Adrienne" thread:
> 
>}|| = Nyikos
>}| = Novak

>}|| When last I checked, Ms. Regard seemed to have the opinion that fetuses
>}|| cannot will anything.

>}| Her opinion is accurate.  You're making no sense so far. ("Will of the
>}| fetus"??? Thorazine time for Pete.)

>I think Ms. Regard, Mr. Novak and I would be in general agreement about
>the authenticity of any speaking part for the "unborn."

>}Is there something you and Steve ought to be discussing?

>I'm not sure, maybe your treatment.   Steve seems to think that Thorazine
>might help.  I'm not sure anything would help.  Maybe we should 
>discuss that.  

Shucks, I'm not hopeless, am I?  I gave you a few good laughs, I hope.

You certainly gave me some of the best laughs I have had all year.  But
along this thread, your humor is wearing a bit thin.  So I bid you 
adieu here.  If you desire any more responses from me, join me in 
some other thread.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Originator: rja@redwood26
Keywords: abortion, rape, sexual battery
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:20:16 CDT


In article <nyikos.715387086@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In my short time with talk.abortion, I have already seen how some
> pro-choicers are ready to label someone a misogynist or woman-hater
> simply because said person fits the "pro-life" label better than the
> "pro-choice" label.

There's a very high noise-to-signal ratio in t.a.  You'll
find all kinds posting here.

>                      One very clear example of that came in my e-mail
> yesterday, accusing me of hating women purely and simply because I 
> "would keep a woman pregnant against her will" [No ifs, ands, or buts
> appended, which is typical of people of this mentality.]

At least they did not send mail to your sysadmin or boss asking
for them to take certain actions in response to your posts, as
has been known to happen (see Dan Brey).

> 	These people are barking up the wrong tree.  If they would only
> open their eyes a bit, they would see evidence of misogyny from some 
> of the very people they defend as caring about women.

Has there been anyone defending Dr. Lehrer's actions?

>                                                         Here is a 
> particularly blatant case, taken from the May, 1988 _Miami Herald_,
> for which I am indebted to Charles Wysong.
> 
> 	  Police have arrested a Fort Lauderdale abortion clinic
> 	physician after his wife reported that he handcuffed her,
> 	strapped her to a table in their home and performed an abortion
> 	against her will.

Does not sound like Dr. Lehrer was respecting her right to choose.

> 	  Dr. Theodore Lehrer, 52, was arrested at his condominium
> 	at 936 Intracoastal Drive late Wednesday on one count of sexual
> 	battery, Fort Lauderdale police spokesman Ott Cefkin said.
> 
> 	  In court documents filed Thursday, Lehrer's 37-year-old wife
> 	told authorities that he performed the abortion on her Sunday
> 	night at the couple's condominium.  He was angry because she
> 	refused to have sex with him because of sickness caused by her
> 	11-to-14 week pregnancy, she told authorities.
> 
> 	  She pleaded with him not to rape her, she said.  He placed
> 	a gauze pad over her mouth but removed it when she feared
> 	suffocation.

What is your point?  I think everyone agrees that forced abortions
should remain illegal.

> Via the pro-life grapevine, I was put in touch with a truly dedicated
> pro-life feminist who said she would try to find out about subsequent
> developments in the case.  [She moved to Ft. Lauderdale after the arrest
> in question.]  What with Hurricane Andrew, the answers might take a 
> while in coming.
-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jnorris@milton.u.washington.edu (Joel Norris)
Subject: aborting females
Reply-To: jnorris@u.washington.edu
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 01:52:09 GMT

I don't normally follow talk.abortion, but I was wondering about something
and this seemed to be an appropriate place to ask it. How do pro-choice
people out there feel about a woman aborting a female fetus because she
wanted a boy instead? Does a woman's right to an abortion include the right
to abort a female fetus because she would grow up to be a woman instead of
a man? I don't know whether this happens in the U.S., but it happens in
other countries.

Joel
From: ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 30 Aug 92 02:46:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute

>From martyg@ocf.Berkeley.EDU Thu Aug 27 18:54:06 1992
>
>However, if abortion is merely a "medical operation" similar to heart surgery
>or removing a tumor, then why do women who have gone through abortions
>feel very miserable?  Why does it become such a hard task?  There are even
>group-therapy sessions for women who have had abortions.  Imagine having
>a group therapy session for people who have had their tumors removed
>wondering if it was the right decision to remove their tumor and feeling
>bad about removing it.

There are support/therapy groups for heart and cancer patients.
There are also support groups for women who have miscarried
and even women who have given birth.  I fail to see your point.



Linda
--
They're complicated people leading complicated lives, and
he complicates their problems by telling complicated lies
     The Flag, Barenaked Ladies
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.religion.computers,alt.sex,soc.singles
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject:  Sex Sacrifices and MultiProcessing Computers
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 10:29:31 GMT

regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

] In article <1992Sep1.142942.10219@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
] >ec>Then why are they still having sex if there are things in their lives
] >ec>that obviously have a higher priority?
] >Hopefully some day in the future you will have the opportunity to
] >find this kind if information out on your own.
] 
] Can't imagine anybody hiring this person for a job that required
] "multi-tasking", can you?
] 
] Adrienne Regard
] 


Folks, Lets Watch Where we POST thing...

If folks need to know about Sex, they can try alt.sex, or
soc.singles, where there are many knowledgeable persons
willing to clarify the technical complications of engaging
in various Sexual Depravities like heterosexuality, and like perversions.

As for Multitasking, I think that alt.religion.computers would
be an excellent place to clarify why the CRAY is obviously
God's Personal Choice in High Performance Floating Point Optimised
Technology, and should NOT be confused with lowly toys spawned
by worshipers of the DEVIL!!!!!

Adrienne I am Just SHOCKED that you would be so CALLOUS [1]
in your posting style!!!! 

ciao
drieux


[1] it is a shame there is no alt.palm.problems.....



-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Daniel Dick and ignorance is bliss!
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:00:22 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Sep3.152728.20037@pony.Ingres.COM> dan@Ingres.COM
(Daniel J. Dick) writes: 

>Stephen, if you want to behave like a total jackass and defend your own
>side's misrepresentation, defend someone's childish mockery, and join in
>yourself in more of the same, then I don't need or want your respect or
>care at all about what you have to say.  Let's suffice it to say you're
>in my kill file and you're welcome to place me in yours.

You started your post by saying that you had not read Nyikos and then
proceed to state that you know what he said.  That is what a total
jackass does.  Then you proceed to attribute the misrepresentation in
his post, that the pro-choice position supports forced abortions by
doctors on their wives, to the pro-choice side: That sounds like
defending childish mockery.  I don't killfile; I decide by header what
I want to read.  You may do whatever you like.

>What I want is an intelligent discussion with people who are willing to
>play by the standard rules of mature discussion--namely that they address
>the arguement of the *opposing* side straight on instead of misrepresenting
>it and mocking the misrepresentation.  Muster up inside yourself the courage
>and honesty to face the issues as they are instead of wasting everybody's
>time with your childish gibberish.  We don't want to hear it.

One standard rule of discussion is to read what you are going to
comment on; you began this discussion by breaking this rule and now
you are hurt and offended that others don't regard you as worthy of
serious response.  We were responding to a gross misrepresentation of
the pro-choice position by Mr. Nyikos; you still seem unable to
understand this.  

>Get to the issues.  Is abortion right or wrong?

Whether a given abortion is right or wrong is the choice of the woman
carrying the child.  

>  Have all arguements been
>presented intelligently and addressed by the opposing side?

I have tried to present why I hold my positions in numerous posts.
Your response to one of my reasons was to suggest that all parents
should should be compelled to use their bodies to support the lives of
their children (Remember your post about forced kidney donation by
fathers).  I asked about blood donations and Jehovah's Witnesses, but
you haven't responded.

>  Are both sides
>well represented?

If you and Mr. Nyikos represented the anti-choice contingent, the
answer would most certainly be no.

>  Can we read the arguements of both sides here and be
>spared of the childish mockery, blither-blather, and flame wars?

Actually reading posts before responding to them and not completely
reversing their actual contents might be a place to start.

>  Or have
>all the arguements come to a conclusion that some are unwilling to allow to
>be heard?

I don't think so.  Preachy deletia.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: irshad@polyp.micro.umn.edu (Irshad A. Mohammad)
Subject: Re: aborting females
Organization: University of Minnesota CIS
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 03:40:31 GMT

This is ridiculous.
If she shouln't know the sex of the fetus, why
the hell will she go for the test!?

-I.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Dodge _THIS_...
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:13:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.234311.8950@csus.edu>
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>And then the FOCA would be thrown out in the Supreme Court because it
>interferes with the right of the fetus, to live.

There is no Constitutional right to life, Mr. Chaney.

>The Supreme Court, without
>a privacy ruling that invalidates laws banning killing innocent human life,
>would make birth a basic right for all unborn children, and would
>invalidate Roe vs. Wade, which would mean the fetus would regain personhood
>status.

Huh?

As I said above, there is no Constitutional right to life.

Fetuses never *had* personhood status in the first place; that's been
recently documented on talk.abortion.

Additionally, I don't see how you can reach the conclusion that
without Roe vs. Wade legal abortion automatically collapses (because
of the Supreme Court), due to the simple counter-example that some
states had legal abortion before Roe vs. Wade.

-- 
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: Another fantastic reason to vote for Bush
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 05:35:05 GMT

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

>The next-of-kin of an organ donor acts in the best interests
>of the deceased when they give permission to transplant organs.

Ummmm, Holtsinger, the deceased HAS no "best interests".

>Doug Holtsinger

            -rocker
             on the other hand, they have no worst interests either
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: The Self Evidently True
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 11:02:51 GMT

regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
] 
[ A bunch of stuff, deleted. ]
] 
] Well, I've been 'vintage' most-everything today, according to Peter.  
] Including, probably, vintage.talk.abortion.  Nothing new, folks.
] 
] Pfffft.
 
Adrienne,

	If we keep you in a Cask 
down in the Wine Cellar will we
be able to sell you at a better Price?


ciao
drieux







-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Badm
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who was "Dennis Hall"?
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:52:37 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Aug25.172947.17529@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>In article <Bt98Ev.Bp9@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

>>}Excuse me, Patrick.  I don't see that Steve's skin color is of any 
>>}relevance.  I find the phraseology here repugnant.

>Oh, gee, it sounds like PatricKKK has been admonished by his minister,
>Scott Roby, and by his fellow pulpit-goer, Galen. 

>Hey, have you given the Church of Scott Roby your donation today? They need
>donations for their "Steve Chaney posts as Dennis Hall" story. 

Steve, you are offending myself and perhaps those of strong orthodox religious 
orientation by your flippant use of "Church" and "minister" in the above 
sentences.

I dare say it may be as offensive to some as we both recently found the use 
of the word "black" in an inappropriate context to be. 



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity