HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:53:35 GMT

in a post supporting e.e's anti-choice stance,
pro-lifer wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->In <92311.065313ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> 
->   Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes: >
->>Elizabeth dear in or out of context supporting jail
->>terms for women who obtain banned abortions is the
->>antithesis of the pro-choice movement.  
->>
->>imo, your demand to criminalize a medical procedure places 
->>an undue psychological burden on those women who must obtain
->>the procedure by forcing them to justify why their abortion 
->>should not be viewed as murder and ultimately requiring women 
->>to literally plead for their lives.

->Oh, nonsense.  Beth is very clearly discussing the decision
->to abort *viable*, third trimester humans.  At the risk of
->focusing on *them* for a moment, these would be fetuses that
->have an excellent chance of survival when disconnected from
->the woman *intact*.  Requiring women to make the big "choice" 
->within four or five months of discovering they are pregnant
->in no way represents an "undue psychological burden". 

is that your professional opinion? or was this just a
cute way of making the point that you and ms. bartley
wish to force women to remain pregnant when those
women wish otherwise?

[...]

->>You my dear are trying to use a sledge
->>hammer to swat at flies and in the process this will
->>create additional disadvantages for women.

->It disadvantages women to require that they make their
->decision within four or five months?  

i think it does. obviously you and ms. bartley don't
mind imposing your beliefs/morality on those who don't
share those beliefs/morality.

->>Oh btw Elizabeth dear, the only heros I have are women.

->While such an assertion is probably just coincidental, some 
->might wonder if this doesn't represent a bit of anti-male 
->sentiment...

i wonder if your comment doesn't display a bit of
misogyny. or, perhaps you were just being petty.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Right to Choose
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 16:16:46 GMT


In article <1992Nov3.184115.27538@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
 
>Did you know there is only one clinic in South Dakota.This is my plan have
>only one clinic in each state so that it is a long drive and long waiting lines
>once they get there.
 
And I'm going to work on the opposite.  I will be happy when an organization
such as Planned Parenthood is in every community.  The wonderful thing is 
you can work on your goal and I can work on mine.  I just think it would
be just as wrong for me to attempt to use legislation to stop you as you
to use legislation to stop me.

>-Jeff Price
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:22:07 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
>A sentient fetus is a "person" in the phenomenological sense of the
>word.

Unless, that is, "sentient fetus" is an oxymoron.

>Boy, talk about reading comprehension problems!  Fertile women and sperm
>banks both contain potential human life: the unfertilized ova, and the sperm.
>The fetus is actual human life.  Pro-lifers are not into greatly 
>increasing the number of human beings on this earth; they are very 
>concerned about reducing their numbers by violent means, in utero.

Are you suggesting that an unfertilized egg, zygote, and embryo are
all NOT human life?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Cochran's Restriction Considered Harmless (?)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 17:39:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.024629.20691@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.040523.13980@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct29.014024.14540@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
>>>Keith Cochran candidly admitted:
>>
>>>"...let me
>>> tell what sort of *legal restrictions* I support wrt abortion:
>>
>>> 1)The pregnant woman must voluntarily ask the doctor to perform one.
>>
>>What when she's in a coma?  There was a case a few years back when a
>>pro-life group went to court to stop a man from having his comatose
>>wife given a very late abortion (he had some reason to believe it
>>would bring her out of the coma; she did recover a couple of months
>>later)....  In that case the judge threw it out of court ruling lack
>>of standing.  Would you have let him do it?
>
>I don't know.  One of the reasons why I refuse to advocate any sort of
>legislation wrt abortion is that I know I don't know.

You advocate a "legal restriction" on abortion, Cochran. Mind explaining
to me what you think the difference is between that and "legisation", in
this context?

								- Kevin
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh? (LONG)
Date: 8 Nov 1992 22:44:10 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


   If people like Peter Nyikos could grasp what it truly means to
be an American, CHOICE would be a sacrament.

-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: In which tommy outlines the inherent misogyny of pro-life.
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:31:56 GMT

usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil writes ...
>This kind of hedging never ceases to amaze me.  Every pro-choicer seems to 
>have their own pet boundries for when abortion should be outlawed.  It 
>becomes
>'pro-choice (as long as it's my choice'

This can also be applied to pro-lifers.  It just happens that their
choice is also inconsistent (rape exceptions or no, incest exceptions
or no, contraception or no).

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: I'm back, did I miss anything?
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:07:07 GMT

In <Bx9pK3.2p4.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >

>Overpeck is still trying to convince everyone that he's a 
>wonderful person 

Being referred to in a patronizing fashion is obviously
condescending, Susan.  But I only object to being mis-
characterized by those whose only goal in posting seems
to be to undermine the credibility of others.

>and that drugs are BAD.  

The literary license you take with my positions border
on dishonesty.  It would be accurate to say that I am
convinced that the effects of some drugs are sometimes 
bad.  

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roger@access.digex.com (Roger Williams)
Subject: Re: a woman'right, not a common good..
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:46:32 GMT


In article <adams.721328315@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes: 
>
>No they are not....they protect rights.  Killing, raping, and robbing all
>deprive me of something without my consent.  If I conent to an action, as
>does the other participant(s), then it is none of the governments business.
>
> -Steve

OK:  consider laws prohibiting cruel and inhumane treatment of animals.  
Do you think these laws constitute an imposition of morality on those 
citizens who do not agree that cruel and inhumane treatment of animals 
is in any way morally significant or wrong?

Roger Williams
roger@access.digex.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: anti-choice claims
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:38:54 GMT

keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>->If you disagree with her, say so and say why.  If you agree with her 
>->say so and say why.  
>
>did you somehow become t.a.'s moderator? are you
>empowered to tell people what to post?

It was a request.  Only a pinheaded pedant would mistake that comment
as being in any way authoritarian.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Keegan fails to challenge documentation showing that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand  
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:02:21 GMT

In article <g_k1jbc@rpi.edu> 
keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

>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?

> probably because your "documentation" has been debunked
> repeatedly. 

Only one person has directly challenged my documentation 
showing that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand
throughout the term of pregnancy, and that person relied
upon a single source from an author who has held conflicting
views on Roe v. Wade.  My six independent sources (two from
pro-abortion rights groups) show that Roe is abortion-on-
demand.  

> and really now, given your net.reputation,
> you can't expect people to believe what you post.

Sorry, but your attempts at character assassination 
don't count as challenges to my documentation.


Doug Holtsinger


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Jay Stein stops insinuating, and starts posting claptrap 
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:16:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.202416.28786@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- apply to inconspicuous area first) writes:
>> Ah, but prolifers *do* condone these bombings.  Not *all* prolifers, but
>> a plurality of pro-lifers.  How do I know this?  'cause I've asked a huge
>> number of them, and a disturbing percentage of them think it's okay.
>
>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".

Jay?
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: False claim by usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil
Date: 8 Nov 92 18:52:19 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <nyikos.721004995@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes the usual accusing me
of falsly claiming the following:

>>I'm always gentle.

I didn't know this statement required strong indicators that it was
issued tongue in cheek.  I'm sorry if some people believed that I had
a perception of my talk.abortion persona as always gentle; I don't.

>Trouble is, last time I e-mailed Mezias, he was anything but gentle
>about it.  Fortunately, it is now November 5, past sundown, so I
>don't have to run the risk of him flaming me again.

If you had emailed me to follow up a post when I said I would be out
of town, I would certainly have responded to you.  What you did was
email to me regarding matters under discussion on T.a, and I made it
clear that T.a was the forum for debate not email.  

SJM
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, 6 Nov 1992 05:13:00 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->In <Bx5F0H.KCw.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
->   (Susan Garvin) writes: >
->>I think that Jim is a reasonable man.  I think that comparing
->>him to Chaney shows just how twisted you have become regarding
->>him.  

->Kevin's response to this accurately describe Jim's behavior.  

i recommend you think about what susan wrote to you
bill. watching someone who used to make credible posts
refer to something kevin posted as a supporting
reference is an ugly sight.
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: today's lunch: domino's pizza and snapple.
Keywords: pro-life supporters. dominos. snapple
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:44:51 GMT


 is eating dominos or drinking snapple directly
 supporting the anti-choice movement?

 why don't they rename those life ads: "life, what a
 conservative, white choice."?

 how many pro-lifers would feel the way they do if
 their 15 year-old daughters got pregnant?

 how many pro-lifers would go through with a birth
 if they were pregnant and barely making enough 
 money to support themselves?

 answers: no, i don't know-but they should, few
 and fewer.

 tomorrow: why dominos pro-life stance is in conflict
 with the way they drive.

 mark.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47102 alt.abortion.inequity:4935 soc.men:18854 soc.women:19045
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Date: 7 Nov 92 23:35:00 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <d9k1p_b@rpi.edu> 
keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

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

>> You might
>> be interested to know that the Western ethic against infanticide
>> gained its roots from early Judeo-Christian thought.  

>  "First of all, the phrase "Judeo-Christian" 
>  *anything* is offensive to Jews, who consider 
>  the two religions opposed at their most basic
>  points, no matter what their origins may have 
>  been [...]"
>     rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)

So what?  That's *her* opinion, not mine. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice CANNOT justify calling infanticide murder
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:32:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.040815.416@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
}In article <19240.2afd3caf@levels.unisa.edu.au> 
}9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon) writes:
}
}> A newborn, although requiring support for the next few years
}> of it's life does NOT have to be a burden on anyone who doesn't
}> want it to be, anybody (but a lactated woman is preferable) can
}> look after it.
}
}But no person has the right to kill a newborn infant if they
}are physically unable to transfer custody of that infant to 
}another person.  

I wasn't aware that a case like this had come up at all.  Do you
mean that there was someone who wanted to transfer custody of someone
but was physically unable?  Where?  When?  Can you provide some
details?

}There are two other alternatives to a C-section: waiting for birth, 
}or inducing labor with drugs.  

It has been my understanding that a doctor performs a c-section when there
is little alternative.  This is not to say that other methods
have been exhausted, but often they have been considered and
rejected.  In other words, drugs and waiting for birth are not
alternatives, regardless of what you say.

}I would guess that both of these 
}alternatives are about as safe as a late-term abortion in which
}the child is killed. 

Your guess would be wrong, dead wrong, in a number of cases.

}A person's 'shame' has never been an adequate justification
}for killing another person.  

It sure has.  It may still be in some countries, I'm pretty sure
it was recently in Spain or Brazil.  It had to do with male
honor and the like.  


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Yeah! Slick Willie Won! Yeah!
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:11:24 GMT

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:

[--deletions, including congratulations for Clinton--]

> The War is not over we have just lost a battle. We may have to wait for
> another 4 years before another one as important as this one comes up again
> but hopefully Bill [Clinton] will screw up and we get a pro-life presidant
> with a few morals again.

You mean one that won't trade arms for hostages?

You know, it's heartwarming to see people like yourself hope for failure
in the attempt to rebuild our Republic, just so you can have another crack
at advancing your agenda.

I agree that the war is not over.  It looks as though pro-choicers will have
to devise strategies for dealing with right-to-lifers who threaten and harass
patients and medical personnel, and with members of the Religious and/or
Radical Right who increase the demand for abortion by opposing sex education
and effective birth control.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
 "Republicans run on a platform that government is bad.  And when we
           elect them, they prove it!" -- Phil Harbison
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: BECKY BELL'S AUTOPSY AND COMMENTARY
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Nov 92 22:47:20 GMT

In <1992Nov03.002908.146170@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In <nyikos.720054434@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>       "Becky, I don't want to go through this again," William Bell
>>    recalls telling his daughter.
>>
>>       But Rebecca remembered the conversation differently, Clark said,
>>    recalling repeatedly that her parents told her if she messed up
>>    one more time, she'd be thrown out of the house.
>>
>>It is not unreasonable to infer from the above, that if Rebecca had
>>notified her parents, they would have easily given their consent to
>>an abortion;

>It is even more reasonable to believe that Rebecca believed (rightly or
>wrongly) that if she told her parents that she was pregnant (i.e., "had
>messed up again") that they would throw her out of the house.

Especially if she did not agree to an abortion.  To carry to term would
probably have been compounding the "mess-up".

Peter Ny.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Post Natal Abortion (couldn't find original)
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:52:52 GMT

In article <19125.2af12207@levels.unisa.edu.au> 
9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon) writes:

> Some unidentified person writes:

>> It's fairly clear that
>> abortion is O.K. The child doesn't feel anything and is not aware of his
>> impending demise (and therefore doesn't suffer phsycologically). In fact the
>> same argument can be applied to justify "post-natal abortion", since a child
>> of say less than 1 year of age can not understand that he is about to die
>> (provided the surgeon acts tactfully), and can be put to death in a painless
>> way.

The idea that infanticide is not wrong has been expressed by a
number of other pro-choicers on this newsgroup; it's nothing new.  
And don't be surprised when the other pro-choicers stay silent
on the subject. 

> John J McVey


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 06:57:56 GMT

<nyikos.720822316@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
><1992Oct28.220024.15560@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) :
>><adams.720210646@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) said:
>>>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>>From article by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>>>>> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney):
>>>>> Suzanne, do you believe that gay men hate women?
>>>>
>>>>I believe that gay men hate everybody, including themselves.
>>>
>>>Huh?  This has to qualify for finalist in the dumbest statement in the history 
>>>of Usenet competition.
>
>>Yup, pretty frightening too when you figure this person is going to be
>>raising children AND voting too.  I wonder how (or even if) Nyikos will
>>defend this statement of ignorance from his fearless leader.
>
>This is her opinion, and she is entitled to it, incorrect though it may
>be.  

I never attempted to deny her right to her opinion.  BTW, remember here
that you called her statement "incorrect".

>     And before you start flaming the two of us, ask her which definition
>of "hate" she is using.  It has quite a broad range of definitions.

Then how do you know she is incorrect?  I didn't say she was incorrect, I
just let her statement stand on it's own.  *You* say she is incorrect.
(BTW, I do believe she is gravely mistaken.)

>People can distinguish between privately hating abortion, like Brian 
>McBean does, and publicly lifting a finger against it, as Brian refuses
>to do.  

Knowing that you hate something and claiming that you know what other
people hate are two completely different things, Peter.  The first
requires self-awareness, the second requires mind-reading.

>        Let's acknowledge the same range of possibilities elsewhere, and
>also distinguish between hating gays, which Suzanne does not, and thinking
>gay men hate "everybody, including themselves," which Suzanne did think at
>the moment in time she made the statement.  

I didn't say that Suzanne hated gays (although my personal opinion is that
she does).  She made a clinical diagnoses about 10%+ of the population of
the USA.  She made a bigoted statement, which you still attempt to
defend.

>BTW Suzanne is not my leader. [She may be fearless, though. :-)]

She's clueless, which probably makes her fearless.


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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion