HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Help Me Understand (was Re: Not So Good Bumper Sticker)
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 03:52:51 GMT

In article <92230.184521ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET> <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET> writes:
>BTW, would you brandish a woman a criminal who 'was caught' having
>committed an abortion?  Please, enlighten us!  --Would you throw her
>into the slammer?  Sentence her to a re-education camp?  (I presume
>that this one has crossed your mind!)  Perhaps force the murderess
>to watch bloody aborted fetuses???  Hmmm?

Perhaps he would prefer to have the miscreant forcibly impregnated and forced
to carry the child to term to make up for her "sin" of abortion?

But of course this is unwarranted accusation and I take it back.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

The earth is like a tiny grain of sand, only much, much heavier.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Observations
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 01:12:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.191212.8054@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:

[Delete.  Delete.  Delete...]

> You seem intent to make this a religious argument.  Whether or not 
> you believe in a higher intelligience, reproductive organs are exactly
> that REPRODUCTIVE organs.  Any other justification for their existence 
> is based solely on emotional responses of humans.  

Gee, so I guess I have a big cucumber and some big walnuts instead of
"reproductive organs", right???
>
> Yes, I believe abortion is wrong.  I do not think it is right to take 
> a potential life because you were not prepared to deal with that life. 
> Just because I would allow abortions in cases of incest and rape does 
> not mean that I do not believe a fetus has a right-to-life.  I do believe
> that a woman should not be forced go through a pregnancy caused my unwanted,
> illegal or immoral actions from a man.

So, a woman who has sex, is using the pill, and requires her partner to use
a condom is obviously stating that pregnancy is an "unwanted" outcome, right?

So she can have an abortion.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=I am not "pro-life"... - Doug Holtsinger in article                          =
=                                          <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu>   =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: GC.NBA@forsythe.stanford.edu (NARLEN)
Subject: Re: Mis-attribution
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 18:33:40 GMT

In article <16ql7iINNob@gilligan.East.Sun.COM>,
mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM ( Corp. Net Ops) writes:
>Hi...
>
>In the thread about "Another Good Reason Not To Vote For Bush",
>I mistakenly failed to edit Tim Buckley's name out of the
>attribution line in my follow-up post. The quote I was using
>was from message-id <l8vi0uINNeu4@spim.mips.com>, which was
>posted by Michael Polen.
>
>The quote was:
>
>Right-to-life is a religious war, not an intellectual one.
>
>Which I still heartily agree with!

         WRONG! You're both wrong and you know you're wrong.
             Knowledge can be frustrating boys.

>
>Again, sorry for the mis-attribution, especially to you, Tim!
>
>-- Mike
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Disclaimer: This in no way represents the organization I work for.
From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:46:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Sep2.183409.25366@pony.Ingres.COM> dan@Ingres.COM
(Daniel J. Dick) writes in response to my post on this thread:

>I missed out on what Mr. Nyikos said, but from this message alone, I cannot
>come to the same conclusion that Mr. Nyikos is either a liar or a misogynist.
>It seems like Mr. Nyikos point was overlooked.  Are you addressing his point
>face on or are you focusing the attention of the discussion
>elsewhere?

He wanted to know why people were calling him a misogynist; I told him.

>  Are
>you  engaging in honest logical discussion or reaching for excuses to flame
>and insult your opponent away?

He asked a question and I answered it.

>Mr. Nyiko's point was not that women such as the Florida physician's wife
>should be forced into abortion.  His arguement, whether a good one or not,
>is that the baby's right to life is violated identically in either situation.
>In one situation, the mother makes the choice.  In the other, the father makes
>the choice.  Both are wrong.  Don't waste my time asking me who I am to use
>the "W" word because it really doesn't matter who I am.

The right to choose is not about the life of the /z/e/f/ any more than
the right to refuse to donate a kidney is about the life of the person
who needs the kidney: The focus is on the right of an individual to
decide whether their bodies will be used against their wills to
support another life.

>As for requiring fathers to support the lives of their children through
>kidney donorship, etc., as a new father-to-be, I feel that any man worthy
>to be called a man, should have the love and courage to do this for his
>children if necessary.  If there is a law up for the vote requiring this,
>I'll vote for it, too.  It does not make sense for us to demand more
>responsible behavior from someone else than we demand of ourselves.

What about laws concerning forced blood donation to children?  What
will you do about Jehovah's Witnesses?  ETc.  Etc.

Unrelated deletia attaching feminists and others who object to
emotional distortions in Pro-Lie commercials.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Why do they call themselves "pro-life"?
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:22:52 GMT

In article <adams.714668788@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>
>Other than that, there are candidates listed from the New Alliance Party
>(Lenora Fullani), the Socialists, the Communists, etc, etc.
>
>None of these so called "3rd Parties" has any real chance at this point.
>That last Non Republican/Democrat to get a decent number of votes was John
>Anderson in 1980 (Reagan vs. Carter).
>
>It's too bad.  A true 3rd party could only help.

Heck, how's about the US Taxpayers' Alliance or the American
Independent Party, two big pro-life alternative parties? 

Two can play that game, too, you know. 

 
=============================================================================
Question: If you don't have truck bombs and thousands of fanatics to
	  sacrifice their lives and drive them, how do you scare a 
	  nation into giving in to your demands?

Answer:   Buy coat hangers and encourage women to kill themselves
	  with them and call yourself "pro-choice".
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|                                                                           |
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
=============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33427 alt.abortion.inequity:3272
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Sarah Floors John Stevens! [Film at 11]  (WAS Re: Observations)
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:28:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (John Stevens) writes:
>> = (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
>>> = (Mike Serafin) writes:

>>>  Whether or not you are celibate isyour choice.  My point being that we
>>>  must begin to accept responsibility for our actions, even if that means 
>>>  accepting responsibility for the failure of contraception.  

What's this "we" crap?  Do what you please; other then that, mind your 
own business.  

>>Please explain (without the use of truth by blatant assertion) why an
>>abortion is not a responsible response to an unwanted pregnancy.

>Turn it around.  Explain (without the use of any belief system) how an
>abortion is objectively a responsbile decision.

John, don't be _afraid_.  Answer her question, if you're able. 

>Different belief systems, different beliefs (but not always).

My, what a _bold_ statement :).



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33686 alt.flame:12362
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:52:44 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

lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
-> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
-> > We don't take a hold of one of our own people,
-> > like you did Siren, and pluck them, feather by
-> > feather, until they decide to go away forever.

chaneyhall flames siren who has been off the net for a
month!!!!  what's next for you, chaneyhall? will you
begin to flame the names listed in the obituaries?

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: And Now, You're A Halfwit!!
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 18:54:14 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <BtwrKA.BLG@cs.dal.ca>  franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> Still, aren't ya a little curious to know how old Leftie is?

No, but then, I have a life.

(How are ya, old Lefty?  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 02:03:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.023112.7474@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.214911.10266@Cadence.COM> 
>phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>> Yes, but the pro-choice position allows pro-life women not to have abortions.
>
>But apparently the pro-choice position (as espoused by the Democratic party)
>forces pro-life women to pay for someone else's abortion.  

So, Dougie, does this mean you support the right of a woman to have an abortion
as long as someone who objects to abortion doesn't have to pay for it?

Somehow, I doubt it.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

You cannot kill time without injuring eternity.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: DOD indulges his obsession with lists
Summary: my first reply must be in the bit-bucket 
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:02:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.173821.28001@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#List of unsubstantiated accusations by Susan Garvin against me:

I really think that you should go ask someone for a dictionary
and look up the word "unsubstantiated," DOD.  From the context,
you don't know what it means.

#a) Unsubstantiated accusation that I had been making up sources 
#   for an article that Susan Garvin had never seen. 

As Galen said, it's a safe bet that the sun will come up tomorrow,
even though we haven't seen tomorrow yet.  You could have proved
me wrong, but you couldn't resist doctoring quotes again.  As
Mr. Greenfield showed, you did make up the sources in that article.

#b) Unsubstantiated accusation that I had doctored a quote from a 
#   Planned Parenthood official from an article that had been
#   posted to the net. 

I didn't accuse you of doctoring the quote, I asked what you had
deleted.  I'm waiting for a copy of the article from CFC.  Until
I see it, I don't know what you changed or if you faithfully 
reproduced a quote for the first time.

#c) Unsubstantiated accusation that I have willfully lied on 
#   talk.abortion.  

Are you trying to claim that you have no control over your
actions now, DOD?  If you're not, then we've all seen proof
that you willfully lied in t.a. 

Each time that you reproduce the doctored quote on Roe you 
are effectively lying.  Each time that you claim that Roe
granted the right to abortion on demand throughout pregnancy
you are lying.  

#d) Unsubstantiated accusation that I had changed the meaning
#   of a quote from a Georgetown University law professor. 

You did change the meaning, DOD.  You deleted entire paragraphs,
and you deleted the last sentence of the final paragraph that
you did include.  Why don't you write said professor and ask
him if he would still attach his name to your version of his
words.  Maybe you can find out what "lawsuit" means.


It's not my fault that you're a liar, DOD.  It's your own fault.
I've merely pointed out your lies, as have a number of other
people on the net.   Your netwide reputation as a liar is
completely due to your own actions.  I can understand that
you don't like the fact that people disregard your claims,
and laugh at your ineptness, but only you can change the
situation.  

Try posting complete quotes, and try admitting it when there 
are no sources to back up your theories.  Other people
do it all the time, and readers respect them.  Otherwise,
quit trying to blame others for your own very obvious
shortcomings.

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Putting out the fire, sort of
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 05:42:35 GMT

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

>In article <Bt7y3F.FHF@rice.edu>
>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>> (As a matter of fact, don't expect to see all that much
>> of me in this group for the next few days

>Snakes have a habit of crawling back under their rocks 
>until the storm blows over. 

Yes, we've all noticed how you do that.

                       -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: People Concerned Until Childbirth
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:39:20 GMT

In article <BtMC8n.B6A.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
> There was another exhibition of just how much the protesters outside
> the clinics here care for children last Saturday.  The young daughter
> of one of the demonstrators ran in front of a moving car.  She was
> not seriously injured, luckily, since the car was moving very slowly.
> Her mother neither called an ambulance nor took the child home, but
> forced her to stay for another several hours of demonstrating.  (The
> little girl had scrapes and cuts from the street, and was naturally
> very upset by the incident.)

I'm very sorry to hear that Ms. Garvin.  I wish that clinic 
protesters would leave their children at home, where they 
will be safe and sound.  I admire your compassion which you 
displayed towards that little girl.  I also wish that you would 
display the same compassion towards the children who are going 
inside the clinic to be killed. 

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
 that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
 we want to be precise)..."
   -- Gloria Feldt,
      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:34:07 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <RJOHNSON.92Aug26090204@conus.shell.com>, rjohnson@shell.com
(Roy Johnson) wrote:
> 
> cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook) writes:
>  >
>  >|>Roy Johnson, who is not Kibo
>  >You're _proud_ of not being Kibo?
> 
> No, Kibo is proud that I am not he.

I'm not sure that "proud" is the right word here.  "Vastly relieved" is
probably more appropriate.  I suspect your .sig, if it must say anything of
the kind, should probably read: "Roy Johnson, who could not in anyone's
wildest imaginings be mistaken for even an instant for Kibo".

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 06:57:14 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Sep02.030108.30784@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
><1992Sep2.005607.21559@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>> The rich trade away the rights of the poor whenever more cops and more
>> security measures are taken to prevent theft.
>
>Are you suggesting that the poor have a right to steal?

Odd that Chaney was also the one a short time ago advocating police 
brutality.

Strange child, that one.


Gordon
-- 
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: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:25:19 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <nyikos.714843687@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <17dgvmINN82m@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>One reason I have held off replying to some of your mail, Adrienne, is that
>it is so hard to see what you are talking about.

I know.  I have the same problem with your posts.

Generally speaking, I was flaming some git for predetermining how 'good'
the information 1.5 million women per year had.

>Could you give a ball-park estimate of what percent of the 1.5 really
>know all they would like to know about the process? 

Well, assuming for the sake of this question that "all they would like to
know" means in fact "all they are willing to put forth their effort to
know", then I'd say damned near 100%.  The information about birth and
pregnancy and abortion isn't *hidden* anywhere.  You just have to put
forth some effort to find it.            

>The last three are clearly false. As for the first, I say they are 
>not ignorant, they are
>mis/disinformed by and through those doctors [as in: "the abortion decision

On what grounds?  Upon *what* ground exactly would you diagnose the ignorance
of 1.5 million people that you don't even KNOW?!?!

On what evidence do *you*, Peter, decide that these doctors, who pass the
SAME STANDARDS of testing and conduct as your pediatrician, are agents of
the underworld forcing poor innocent and defenseless women into shameful
sinful actions they would *never* freely undertake themselves?  (Heck, you
started the satire....)

I just must be missing something here.  *I* can get the information.  Any
woman I know can get the information, but somewhere out there in the world
there are hoards of women who CANNOT and who must be *saved* from the 
unscrupulous, money hungry ABORTIONIST who *refuse* to answer simple
questions.

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:46:34 GMT

>  = dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> If I recall correctly, 60 minutes explained how one woman, who needed an
>> abortion to save her life, was refused an abortion at several hospitals
>> ...
>> One might argue that technically the US law grants "abortion on demand",
>> but this anecdote illustrates that in reality it can be extremely 
>> difficult to obtain an abortion EVEN IN LIFE THREATENING SITUATIONS
>> and EVEN IF YOU HAVE LOTS OF MONEY to fly from state to state.  
>
>I think it's rather unscientific to use a single piece of anecdotal
>evidence for extrapolating to the typical case.  

1) *I'm* the one who was up front and called it anecdotal
2) I don't have the time to do scientific studies to substantiate all
   the opinions I have, but I'm more than willing to hear about any
   peer-reviewed scientific studies that were done.  Know of any?
3) IN LIEU OF SCIENTIFIC STUDIES, I'm left to form opinions based on 
   available information (eg. anecdotal evidence) while trying to
   estimate the quality of this information.

Having said that, consider the plight of the woman on 60 minutes:
o Given that she flew from state to state in search of a doctor 
o in spite of this she almost died as a result of being repeatedly denied 
  the needed abortion  (she was unconscious when she finally received it) 
o She was denied the abortion because so many the doctors in a variety 
  of states had been intimidated and/or terrorized into refusing abortions 
  EVEN IN LIFE THREATENING SITUATIONS
o There is no reason to think that the situation would be any different 
  for another woman in a similar situation  

It seems safe to extrapolate that there are large geographical areas where 
"abortion on demand" is a joke -- you can't even get one to save your life.
One state didn't even have ONE doctor who would perform an abortion.
If a woman in that state needed an abortion either she would have to
travel to another state, or an out-of-state doctor would have to travel 
into her state.  I can't recall which state that was, but since you sent 
for the transcript, why don't you enlighten us?

As usual, I'm more than willing to change my opinions given new information.

-Brian
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: "Pro-Life" LIES about Planned Parenthood (yeah, again)
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:15:47 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

Steve Chaney writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.204020.8968@den.mmc.com> (John Sims) writes:
>>Gee, my sister-in-law will be interested to hear this.  She must have
>>heard this one when she called her local PP office to seek some
>>pre-natal advise when she was pregnant. [...And no dice...]

Yes, and where was this, and when?


>The Planned Parenthood that the Love Child of Ren & Stimpy, exists either 
>only in their ads, which talk a lot of hoopla about prenatal care, or in
>the wild imaginations of the media. 

Are you one of those people who so much believes "the end justifies the
means" that you are willing to lie your head off for your vaunted cause?
CALL UP SAN JOSE PLANNED PARENTHOOD.  Until you do, your slander means less
than a ball of lint.

FIND THE FACTS before you post.  ("Don't you pro-lifers just _hate_ this?")

--Teddi
----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)----------------
(And I suppose "The Element Song" is anti-chemist bigotry <snort>)