HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 19:34:40 GMT

In <8cqnc+=.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

><1992Sep3.222813.16609@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by mcbeanb@brandonu.ca:
>>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>> Beware lest somebody come along and second guess the "quality" of _your_
>>>> lifestyle, Brian, and hence whether _your_ life is "worth living".

>You've alreadyt done this to a degree.  You've already decided that 
>anyone living without your religious views is not living a "quality" life.
>You'd even like to legislate things so they have to live your views.  In
>fact, your entire religious viewpoint is that those people who don't live
>a certain "quality" of life will be *rightfully* killed.

People keep telling me of all kinds of horrible things Suzanne has
posted in the past.  I haven't seen any that would even remotely
justify the above statements, and I am calling your bluff: if you have
any evidence Suzanne said these things, please produce them.

>Don't you think it's a little hypocritical of you to warn others about
>"second-guessing" other peoples lifestyle, when you are doing your best to
>do just that?

And if you can't produce anything, then as far as I'm concerned about
your further charge of hypocrisy:

Storga : velcro : : Forgach : teflon

>Gordon
>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
>Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
>and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.

Are you a Wiccan, like Eric?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: SOUTH CAROLINA INCEST-ABORTION LAW
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 11:54:11 GMT
Keywords: incest, consent, emancipated, abortion

In article <nyikos.715968465@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> 	There has been discussion recently as to how paragraph (D) above
> has been followed, and my lawyer friend can't add anything at present to
> what I "know".

Which, as you admit, is damn little.

> 	We do not know whether an abortionist has ever reported a case of
> "alleged incest."  

Nor do we know whether a provider of abortion services has ever
encountered a case of suspected incest, or been able to determine
that a case before him or her was an instance of incest.  And
since denial and guilt often accompany such victimization, a victim
of incest is often unlikely to permit his or her victimization
to be known.

> 	We do not know whether an abortionist has ever been charged, let
> alone disciplined in any way, for failing to report a 
> case of "alleged incest".

Nor do we know that the providers of abortion services have not been
reporting suspected cases.  They may very well have done so numerous
times, but confidentiality has kept it quiet.

Yes, you posted the text of the law involved, Peter.  But nobody
argued that South Carolina had a law requiring that cases of incest
or suspicion of same be reported.  You have been hinting, and then
been careful to act all sweet and innocent and "No I wasn't
speculating or hinting at anything" that providers of abortion
services have violated this law by failing to report incest.
The support for your sleazy argument is right there.  That
support amounts to your lack of knowledge of anyone being
charged with failure to comply with the law.  You don't even
know whether that's because they all have complied with the law,
but you've been trying to imply that some haven't been complying
with the law and have been getting away with it.

Pretty slimey, Peter, and just more evidence of your sterling
character.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:49:41 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <Bu43LD.71q.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>... Many men are feminists.  You can recognize them
>by their actions - they treat women as equals, and work to
>guarantee that no one is discriminated against because of
>their gender.  They don't refer to women as "bitches," ...

Oh, you mean sensitive, WarmAndFuzzy, co-nurturing types like Keith
"I can't be a homophobe 'cuz I'm gay" Cochran, perchance?

---

"Gee, Suxanne the Bitch is back, ..."

"Fuck off and die, bitch."

		Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran
		Tue, 1 Sep 92 00:05:51 GMT
		<1992Sep1.000551.6171@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>

---

Oh, wait! I almost forgot: since Ms. Forgach is a member of a minority
political viewpoint, we're all supposed to look the other way when men
shower her with demeaning insults and/or vulgarities, right?

Gotta love that unity. Gotta love that solidarity. Gotta love that double-
delicious double-standard...

Ptui.

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 18:01:04 GMT

In <Bu42ME.5y2.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715655719@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>#In <1992Sep3.213620.21098@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>##
>##In <1992Sep3.201731.13010@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>#
>###From article <1992Aug26.061545.18227@s1.gov>, by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
>#### 	Well, to be fair, even Jesus Christ was known for white-hot
>#### rages, or so his biographers depict. Consider what those poor Scribes
>#### and Pharisees suffered.
>#
>###Oh, yeah, He really crucified them.
>#
>##     I am disgusted. I find this lighthearted treatment of the Savior's
>##agony on the cross appalling and blasphemous. I demand an apology!
>#
>#You don't fool me for one second, M. Price.  I wonder if anyone doesn't
>#see you are being sarcastic.

>Why would you say that, Nyikos?  Do you think that no Christians
>support legal abortion?

Who said anything about abortion above?  Of course lots of Christians
support legal abortion.  What I'm saying is that M. Price's "disgust"
about "blasphemy" is phony.  I've known Christians of all shades and
stripes, and from everything I've ever heard from them, M. Price's
statement sounds as phony as a $3 bill.  

And that's even without taking into account his silence about Loren's
talk about the "white-hot rages."  With that, the statement becomes
as phony as a $3.50 bill.

>  Any other stereotypes that you subscribe
>to that you'd like to tell us about?

Do you subscribe to M. Price's stereotype of how a Christian would 
respond to Suzanne's statement?

>I note that you didn't make a similar response the last time DOD
>got all self righteous about a religion he claims not to believe
>in.  I'm not surprised.

Before I answer this question, could you please tell me what DOD
stands for?  Dear Old Doug, maybe?

>Susan

Peter Nyikos



Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35362 alt.flame:12579 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:378
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: A modest proposal
Date: 6 Sep 92 23:05:12 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

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> Nyikos, there are no "network censors."  

ummmm susan, have you forgotten kevin darcy?

actually, kebbin isn't really a network censor. he just
acts like one.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36641 alt.abortion.inequity:3780
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:43:25 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


stevens@eatdust writes:
|bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
|>Oh no -- now you've given them Yet Another Excuse to forbid women in
|>combat roles in the armed forces.

|They don't need any excuses.  Because women do not WANT to be in
|combat roles.

John Stevens doesn't know what he's talking about.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors ... perform third trimester abortions"
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Sep 92 21:47:43 GMT

In <1992Sep2.183926.21612@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

>>>> = nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>  = smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
>>   = nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>"List more doctors?"  I'm still looking for someone to complete 
>>>>the list of three.
>>
>>>You and your roving band of terrorists will just have to
>>>do your own research, Nyikos.
>>
>>I resent that crack about terrorists.  I am no more a terrorist than
>>Mahatma Ghandi or Martin Luther King.  

>You may not be a terrorist, but it seems you're self-righteous enough 
>to compare yourself to Mahatma Ghandi & Martin Luther King.

>>>>So far there is George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas.  Who and where are
>>>>the other two?

>#2: Dr. Warren Hern in Boulder, Colorado.  I mention this because it seems
>the terrorist wing of the "pro-life" movement already nows where he is
>and has fired rifle shots through the clinic windows.  I think this 
>falls squarely in the category of "terrorist".  Dr. Hern now works 
>behind 6 layers of bullet proof glass.  

Amazing how a simple question can lead to all this talk about terrorism.
As I recall, it all started out when the pro-choicers said (and in
follow-ups they kept insisting) that there are only 3 abortionists 
willing to do 3rd trimester abortions.  All I wanted to know was who
and where they were, and my only "ulterior" motive was, if I could come
up with additional examples, that would refute the pro-choicers.  

That is why I suggested sending names and/or locations [I know of one
such abortionist who did not want to be identified by name, but the
city was mentioned in the article I have] to a neutral third party, who
could compile them and then tell who is correct.  I suggested "Jammer
Jim" Miller but if he is not acceptable, I am open to other suggestions
(to save time, let me say that Will Steeves and Elizabeth Bartley would
also be acceptable to me).

>[Further talk of terrorism, de facto banning of 3d trimester abortions 
>omitted.]

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:11:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.144108.10600@menudo.uh.edu>
HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

>  Ray, are you in favor then of triage for all?  "It'll cost too much to save
>this guy.  Ditch him."  This can happen when there are too many casualties to
>treat (say after a battle, or a major urban disaster).  Then the deciding factor
>is usually time and medical resources.  Time spent on saving 1 person could
>cost several others their lives.

>  Somehow, I think this mind-set will meet with some resistance when you include
>money in the criteria.  Shall we then dismantle MD Anderson hospital?  Cancer
>costs a LOT of money to treat, and its not even contagious.

Are you under the impression that public funds for health care are
unlimited?

-- 
"The fools and the wise are equally harmless; it is the half-wise and the
half-foolish who are the most to be feared."       - Goethe

eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu                              E. Elizabeth Bartley
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson's rant letter
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:09:09 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <nyikos.715882575@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <Bu4swF.37t.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
##In article <nyikos.715735129@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
###In <1992Sep1.175955.24063@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
###
###
####	For those of you (like Mr. Nyikos) who seem reluctant to accept just
####how loony Pat Robertson has become, here's the AP report on his charming
####little letter/plea for $$, lifted from talk.politics.misc:
###
###HOLD IT!  HOLD IT!  I thought this was all about Pat Buchannan.  
#
#
##Did you?
#
##"Robertson is much too astute to make blanket statements
##like the one you say he suggested."
## - Peter Nyikos <nyikos.715285141@milo.math.scarolina.edu#
#
#
##"Hmmm.  Maybe I gave Robertson more credit than he deserves."
##Peter Nyikos - <nyikos.715468090@milo.math.scarolina.edu#
#
###What's
###Pat Robertson doing, plagiarizing his lines?????
#
##[article deleted]
#
###Or is it Pat Buchannan plagiarizing Pat Robertson?
#
##Or is Nyikos losing his mind?
#
#Not quite, but I certainly must have been stressed by all the things I
#read before posting these comments.  I kept having a mental image of
#Buchannan all the while typing in "Robertson," and maybe because
#it was because the original post had to do with the Republican National
#Convention (or is my memory letting me down here too?) and I saw
#Buchannan on TV, but not Robertson.

:-)

#Starting back on square one: all bets are off as to how astute Robertson
#is.  Buchannan is, but Robertson probably isn't, otherwise his presidential
#campaign four years ago would have been a real threat, what with his
#million-plus band of loyal followers. 

I'm pleasantly surprised that you weren't defending Robertson's
astuteness.  (if that's a word.)  

#Now to square two: I still don't have much of a clue as to who Robertson
#was really talking about.  All the quotes attributed to him that I have
#read so far start in the middle of the sentence and do not say much about
#whose agenda he was referring to.  The fact that some of the people
#involved were members of mainstream feminist organizations does not rule
#out their being also members of splinter groups.

Now, Nyikos, you've come to conclusions on much less information
than this before.  I think you just don't want to admit that
Robertson was raving.

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36596 alt.abortion.inequity:3764
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 15 Sep 1992 10:49:48 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep10.014231.11346@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>>Bearing the child is only a small part of parenting. 
>>We weren't discussing parenting, we were discussing giving birth.
>An inseparable subset of parenting.

I've just bypassed 4 of John's sick postings, and let my 'n' key spare you
all another diatribe, but, really, 5 is too damned many.

If giving birth is such an inseparable subset of parenting, John, then please
explain for us the male's contribution to giving birth.

Let me point out that I have given birth, John, and I am a parent.  And,
frankly, I don't see the connection.

You, John, advocate removing from women their rights to their own physical
persons, the most elemental of forms of personal freedom, because, well, heck,
compared to 18 years of raising, the PHYSICAL TRAUMA, the PHYSICAL IMPOSI-
TION, the PHYSICAL HARM of pregnancy just doesn't look 'that bad' to you.

Of course, we'll conveniently ignore the fact that a significant portion of
women suffer physical effects from pregnancy that last MUCH LONGER than 18
years, because it's convenient for us to do so.

Of course, we'll conveniently ignore the fact that no *male* is required to
donate his kidneys to his children, even though that operation and recovery
period is much less than 9 months, because it's convenient for us to do so. 

It's pretty goddamn convenient for you, John, to be passing judgement on how
'bad' something *you* will never be required to do *is*, isn't it, John./


The rest of his twisted 'slavery' drivel, deleted. 

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:50:19 GMT

In article <nyikos.715899847@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep5.102619.11915@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>
>>CONTRACEPTIONN IS BESIDE THE POINT!! Abortion "prior to the end of the 5th
>>week" is basically beside the point also, since paltry few women know
>>that they are pregnant by that time,
>
>If so, sex education has done a lousy job of teaching about menstrual
>cycles and pregnancy tests, and about the desirability of EARLY abortions.
>

I hate to burst your bubble, but even if a woman KNOWS she is pregnant at
5 weeks (that's three weeks post-conception), no test can be reliably 
performed at that time.  Therefore, a doctor can't perform an abortion
because he could be accused of performing an abortion on a non-pregnant
woman.  Would you prefer that doctors not require pregnancy tests to
confirm a pregnancy prior to an abortion?  I think not.  
>
>I would expect a lot of women have made their minds up, even before
>having intercourse, that if they get pregnant, they'll abort.

Well, you're wrong in your "expectation".  Most women think it over
very carefully before deciding--either on abortion or continuing a
pregnancy.

>
>This is a bogus argument.  What's a 24 hour waiting period compared to 
>5 weeks?
>

You are assuming that a woman knows for 5 weeks.  This is not true.
There are very few women, if any, who know two weeks prior to conception
that they will absolutely become pregnant at that time.  The absolute
soonest a woman could possibly know would be at conception.  She's already
two weeks gone already!  And as I stated before, she couldn't possibly tes
t positive with absolute assurance at 5 weeks.

>
>Well, I can't know when sentience occurs, but there seems to be a 
>prima facie case for it beginning some time between the end of the
>5th week and the end of the 8th.  Like I said, I am open to moving
>up the cutoff point to the 8-week point.
>

I think you should discuss this with Elizabeth B, but I'm pretty sure
that what you're thinking about doesn't occur unti the 23rd week or so.


Jennifer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: CONTRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES, NFP SUCCESS RATES
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:28:47 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Sep11.002747.28086@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu writes:

> I've posted for you all I have on the matter, but I can tell you this, that
> the _expectations_ of a couple using NFP do _change_ during the course of a
> month as to whether participating in an act of intercourse will produce a
> pregnancy.   Certain times of the month they expect they will not get pregnant
> if they have sex, and certain other times of the month they fully expect they
> _will_ get pregnant if they have sex.
> Suzanne Forgach

  Suzzanne,

  I have gotten the impression (please correct me if I am mistaken) that you
have opposed other forms of birth control besides NFP.  If the purpose of NFP
is to allow sex without conception, then *what* is the difference that makes
you opposed to other methods (abortion notwithstanding) of birth control?  What,
really, is the difference between preventing conception via brilliant timing
and doing the same via a small piece of latex/rubber?  Morally, not physically,
since the latter should be obvious. :-)

  Yeah, I'm still here, just very busy.  My boss actually expects me to work
for my net.access!

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for B
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:51:20 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <1992Sep12.223712.29505@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
|> In  <Sep12.080031.56284@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
|> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> > In article <fzmnh9k.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
|> > >
|> > >Here is one difference between slavery and abortion.  A slave is a walking,
|> > >talking, thinking person that can actually say that it doesn't want to be
|> > >a slave.
|> >
|> >      In short: one is, in your arbitrary opinion, a human being sufficiently
|> > like you to deserve a right to life, while the other (again in your arbitrary
|> > opinion) is a human being not sufficiently like you to deserve a right to life.
|> 
|> One is a human being; the other is not.  (Using the normal meaning of the
|> term "human being".)

	This is a factual error.  Medically, a human being begins at conception
and ends at death.  If you require sources I will post a few.  BTW, even informed
pro-legal-abortionists on this net (like Gordon Stoga, and, I believe, E.
Elizabeth Bartley) will acknowledge that we are dealing with a living human being
from conception till birth.  They just think that in some cases (Bartley) or in
every case (Stoga), that the human being in question is not one of those with
human rights.

|> >      Prove, if you will, that walking and talking and thinking are
|> > prerequisistes to personhood.
|> 
|> Why are you asking him to prove something he didn't claim?  A fetus can't
|> walk, can't talk, can't think (certainly not in the first two trimesters),
|> and is not a person (ditto).  There was no claim that the first three are
|> prerequisites for the fourth.

	Fair enough.  What, then, are the prerequisites for personhood, in your
opinion?  Explain.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity