HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cswicego@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Cynthia Swicegood)
Subject: Re: Another Clueless Newbie
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Va.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 03:12:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.233735.27613@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.093844.20481@gmuvax2.gmu.edu>
>cswicego@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Cynthia Swicegood) writes:
>
>>Abortions are wrong!
>
>Truth by blatant assertion.  (Next time try stating your conclusions
>*after* your "evidence", dear.)
>
>>There's no difference between a fetus, a baby, and an adult,
>
>May I suggest a dictionary?
>
>>these are just different steps in human development.
>
>This is accurate.  However, it *does* contradict your statement that
>there is "no difference".  If you wish to say there were no important
>differences, or no moral distinctions, you really should do so outright.
>
>>People say that a fetus isn't anything because it can't survive
>>outside the womb,
>
>Do they?  They really should speak with a pregnant woman, then....
>She could assure them that there really is something in there kicking
>her.  Now, whether it's wrong to kill that something is a more
>interesting and confusing question....
>
>>well a baby already born can't survive outside the womb either
>>unless someone takes care of him/her and feeds him/her.
>
>And?
>
>>You're talking about human life,
>
>True.
>
>>no matter what stage it's at
>
>Oh dear.  Do you support laws against killing eggs and sperm?
>
>>and it's wrong to kill.
>
>Do you eat meat? plants?
>
>And if with the clarity shown in the rest of this post, you meant that
>it's wrong to kill humans, do you think it's wrong to kill in
>self-defense? to kill in defense of a baby? to execute murderers?
>
>>Plain and simple.
>
>Oh my goodness.  Really, you should have realized the abortion issue
>isn't *that* from the amount of debate about it.
>
>Next time, try showing your article to a friend and making certain
>(s)he can understand it without explanations not in the article itself
>before you post it.
>
>--
>Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
>            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Not as clueless as you think.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: The Self Evidently True
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:24:12 GMT

> = (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>> = (drieux, just drieux) writes:

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

>Drieux, there's only one advantage to being as vintage as I am -- there
>ain't nobody on this net can afford me.

I don't know...Chaney claims he'll inherit loads of dough when his
parents die.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:30:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.115244.6089@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>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?

I didn't flame Siren. I said, and read it closely, Rejectus Keegus,
that 
1) Your side plucked Siren off of t.a for good. 
2) Pro-lifers don't engage in this kind of activity against their
opponents, much less themselves, on t.a. (Plucking them feather by
feather, that is.) 

Were you implying the word "pluck" referred to Siren? 
If you did, you were wrong. 

As if that was anything new. 

>-- 
>----
>charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.

=============================================================================
  \______                          |     |      
     |   \                        /     /    ============ The Stupid Ass 
     |              |    __       \    \     |T.S.A.K.C.| Kneejerks 
     |    /\   __   |/  /         /    /     ============ Commune 
     \___/\_)_(__\__|\_/\__    ___\ ___\   
=============================================================================
|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. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Chaney's problems - call for discussion (was: Re: Garvin gets stabbed in the back! (was Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:46:32 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla
Summary: Random flame.

In article <-danjta.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><BtHvG0.A8L@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>><adams.714668119@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>You've devolved to attacking his sig...does that mean you've conceded the
>>>debate?
>>>
>>No, of course not. It just meant that his post wasn't worthy of rebuttal,
>>whereas his .sig stinks. Are you that obtuse?
>
>My .sig "stinks"??  In what way?  Heck, I can see being bored with it, or
>not exactly appreciating the subtle humor.  But "stinks"?

You mean to say that your newsfeed does not receive or transmit
olfactory perceptions?  *gasp*  No wonder.  You'll never get anywhere
in this world with the inferior newsfeed you are receiving.

[...]
>I can safely say that I have nothing to gain from a pro-life stance.

Now why would you say that?  Clearly, taking a pro-choice stand is 
sacrificing one more Tool in the Holy Male Quest of Subjugating the
Female Species.

cpk
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: re: Sex Sacrifice, and the USA
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:37:13 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Sep4.155617.22210@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov writes:

> I guess if we accept the bible as non-fiction, then even completely avoiding
> coitus sex is less that 100% reliable.  However, that is not what I'm referring
> to.  When you mentioned "abstinence = no intercourse", I began to think about
> my apology for using the term abstinence.  But then much to my pleasure, I
> look up abstinence in the dictionary (Actually used xwebster) and there in
> the first definition is "voluntary forbearance".  So even with practicing
> 100% abstinence, a woman can still end up pregnant by someone who ignored
> her wishes not to participate in coitus sex.  
> Dan King

  Smugness is unbecoming of you Dan. :-)  Some others have pointed this out
as well, and of course you are correct.  I was naturally thinking in voluntary
terms.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:25:12 GMT

> = (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> = (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>There are lots of folks who decide not to repeat some of the dumb things
>>Suzanne says.  Maybe you have more sense than we had hitherto dreamed of.

>Don't be so hard on Suzanne. [This refers not so much to what you've just 
>said as some of the things I've heard before.] 
>Her heart is in the right place about
>99% of the time.  I wish I could say the same for you.

I can't say you're being honest, Nyikos.  Suzanne has provided us with
innumerable lies, a callous disregard for world suffering, a boneheaded
fanaticism for a Forgach-brand Catholicism that is even more stifling
and repressive then the real thing (a tough trick to pull off), and a
stated goal of a theocracy in the U.S.

She has claimed she was part of an exorcism performed by a deacon that
sent "clinic workers running into the streets in fear", she's claimed
that pro-choice Christians aren't real Christians, and she ignores plain
fact concerning the C.C.'s changing stance on abortion throughout
history.

I have bunches more of her lies and hatred that I will gladly post.  If
you haven't read them, then you may change your opinion of her.  If you
have read them, then you're as dishonest as Suzanne is.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Abstinence is the only answer
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:16:31 GMT

> = James Keegan writes:
>-> = (Eric Marsh) writes:

>-> Holtsinger looks more like Rasmussen every day. 

>that's certainly true.

>-> Is there any support out there for a Holtsinger
>-> boycott?

>didn't you learn your lesson with the djr boycott? half
>the people who, like lemmings, signed it, ended up
>replying to djr's posts anyway and looking like
>hypocrites for doing so. 

*I* signed it after it had been in effect awhile _and honored it_ for one 
reason: he was SO flabbergasted, he began striking in a panic against
EVERYone like a rattlesnake pinned under a rock, his already obstinate lies 
deteriorating into a brainless flapping similar to a tire in an 80 MPH blowout.

He finally HAD NO ANSWER, not even a stupid lie.  

It was great.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:10:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus

In article <1992Sep3.171653.8227@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep1.213222.19792@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
|> >In article <1992Sep1.165041.11734@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> The beliefs that would be legislated (and enforced on others) would be the
|> >|> belief that abortion is not murder.  In other words, it would enforce a
|> >|> belief about when a child becomes a human being.
|> >|>
|> >
|> >The legislation (Freedom of Choice Act) says nothing about the status of
|> >the fetus or what abortion is/is not. It simply prevents the state from
|> >restricting adult females from aborting a pre-viable fetuses.
|> 
|> Which, obviously, DOES say something about the status of the fetus.
|>

No more then it does say something about the status of dogs, cats, cars,
planes, trains or my appendix.
 
|> >It does not prevent the state from restricting/denying abortion funding,
|> >passing parental consent laws for minors, restricting the abortion of
|> >post-viable fetuses. As it does not require individuals to have an
|> >abortion, nor to approve of abortion, it does not legislate a belief,
|> >nor is any belief enforced on an other.
|> 
|> You seem to have missed my other posts.  If it allows the mother to make
|> a unilateral choice, then the decision to have an abortion is forced on
|> the father.
|> 

A woman's choice to have an abortion may force a decision on the father, but
it does not force the father to belive one way or another. However, you are
correct, to be fair, the father should have some input in the abortion decision.
This brings up a few thoughts:

	a) prior to having sexual intercourse shouldn't the
	   possiblity of preganacy, sexually transmitted
	   diseases and acceptable options be discussed?

	b) how should the father establish paternity?

	c) what level of proof of paternity should be required
	   before allowing the father to have input into
	   the abortion decision.

	d) now, since it may be possible that the woman
	   desires to be pregnant, what level of control
	   should she be allowed over the man's reproductive
	   system to obtain that goal?
-- 
--Bruce

"Truth is ultimately a philosophical concept,...,
 and standards of truth are adequate for practical
 purposes if they are substantially more reliable 
 then the system undergoing evaluation"
				C. E. Metz
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion:  My Views
Date: 2 Sep 1992 17:00:55 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Sep2.032950.11127@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.221022.15269@nntp.uoregon.edu> 
>Eric_Gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric gorr) writes:

>> Legislated morality doesn't work.  

>Then are you against legislating in the areas of homicide, 
>rape, and theft?

These are not necessairly moral issues.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: More on People Concerned Until Childbirth
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) 
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:40:22 GMT

I forgot one other telling bit.  When the mother was speaking of
the civil rights movement, she referred to African-Americans
as "you people" ala Ross Perot.  

I'd always thought that everyone benefited from the civil
rights movement.

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Gag Rule (was Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:48:36 GMT

From article by katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago):
> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>  
>> What the
>>hell is WRONG with informing pregnant women what government services
>>they're entitled to?

These are private agencies and are not using any tax money in doing the
informing.


> Nothing. What the hell is WRONG with informing pregnant women what
> abortion services they're entitled to? 

These are not private agencies and they wish to use tax money in doing
the informing.   There is no restriction where they do not insist on
using our tax money to do it.    That's 'what the hell is WRONG' with it.



> Vickie

Suzanne Forgach
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 2 Sep 92 01:31:15 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1992Aug28.041030.14100@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
># A third trimester fetus can survive independently of the mother. 
>#
># That means all abortions should be outright banned in the third
># trimester because no woman needs to kill a fetus that old, because
># s/he can survive independently. 
>
>Lemme see -- if all third trimester fetuses can survive independently
>of their mothers, and third trimester abortion is banned to prevent
>pregnant women from willfully killing their fetuses, then...
>
>	...how about we just `separate' 24 week and older fetuses from
>their mothers, and pretend it isn't abortion?

As long as the procedure was geared towards preserving the life and health
of BOTH patients, sure, why not?

>Is there a crisis of third trimester abortions where viable fetuses
>are killed for reasons other than medical necessity?
>
>In short, is there a need for such a law?

As a concession, in exchange for a permanent, irrevocable protection of the
Right to Choose in the first 2 trimesters? Maybe there is a need...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Killing (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 22:21:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.232651.672@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

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

>>                                                             The  
>> states are free to pass laws restricting the use of deadly force,
>> for example.  

> That's not true at all, Doug.  Consider the case of the NG or the ANG.
> While they are sort of under the governors' control, they are very
> much under the control of the feds.  The states are not free to pass
> any laws which would restrict their use of deadly force, neither are
> they free to determine how and where these forces may be trained or 
> deployed.  

I said that the Constitution does not give any individual the
right to kill another human being, except where abortion is
concerned.  A person in the National Guard does not have a
Constitutional right to kill other people.  

>     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 04:16:28 GMT

In article <92237.190229ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>In  <1992Aug20.202812.12068@ncsu.edu> Doug Holtsinger writes:
>
>> I was wondering if there would be any interest in a moderated abortion
>> newsgroup.  There are so many personal attacks and insults thrown around
>> on talk.abortion that I thought it might be appropriate to have a newsgroup
>> dedicated to calm and serious discussions of the issues.
>
>> What do people think of the idea?
>
>That it is not surprising that someone who desires
>to control what women do with their bodies would
>wish to control the content of people's posts.
>I can't imagine any other reason for restricting
>freedom of expression.

And here we have a splendid microcosmic example of why flames are so 
counter-productive. Doug says "let's have a moderated newsgroup to
discuss abortion", and Linda, ever on the prowl for more flame material,
*ASSUMES* he means to change the status of the existing group to
moderated, and she immediately accuses him of trying to "restrict 
freedom of expression", along with gratuitous, worn-out rhetoric about
controlling women's bodies. 

Did Linda consider any other possibilities, e.g. creating a SEPARATE
group for the purpose? Of course not. She's locked into FLAME_MODE=ON.
Her post attempted to slam shut any and all windows of opportunity for a 
useful, valuable discussion. Who needs to think and reason when one can 
just belch combustibles?

I support the idea of a moderated group. Even more so after Linda's post than 
I did before.

>However for those that can't figure out how
>to use a F key to kill articles that either
>offend or bore them and for those that want
>to turn the issue into milktoast a moderated
>newsgroup would perhaps be convenient.

"Milktoast". How mature. How civil. I thought only males were supposed
to be this competitive. This confrontational. This egotistical.

I guess I was wrong...

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Nyikos Goes Under (WAS Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:34:03 GMT

In <1992Aug27.161752.12975@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

>> = (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>> = (James G Keegan Jr) writes:

>>>do you have special powers to do this or do you think
>>>any male has the power to barter away the rights of all
>>>females?

>>No, only Harry Blackmun and the six justices whom he either
>>conned or was in cahoots with back in '73.

>"Conned".  He conned SIX JUSTICES?  My, Blackmun would be amused at
>the power you give him due to your mindless hatred of him.

I admit "conned" is a bit of an exaggeration.  I was using it to attract 
attention.  I have some
reason to believe Potter Stewart was in cahoots with Blackmun.
Chief Justice Burger was "conned," as he himself more or less
admitted in his _Thornburgh_ dissent, although he did not
use such a strong word.  He said:

	I regretfully conclude that some of the concerns of the
	dissenting Justices in _Roe_ have now been realized.
	[476 U. S. at 783]

To decode that reference, see my REWRITING HISTORY: Adulterated...   post.
At the end of his dissent ("at 785"), he concluded:

	  In discovering constitutional infirmities in state regulations
	of abortion that are in accord with our history and tradition,
	we may have lured judges into "roaming at large in the
	constitutional field."  *Griswold v. Connecticut*, 381 U. S. at
	479, 502 (1965) (Harlan, J., concurring).  The soundness of
	our holdings must be tested by the decisions that purport to 
	follow them.  If _Danforth_ and today's holding really mean 
	what they seem to say, I agree that we should reexamine *Roe*.

>>They bartered away the rights of women vis-a-vis abortionists.

Especially the right to make an informed decision, as Burger said
in _Thornburgh_:  He recalled his words in _Doe v. Bolton_:

	"Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the 
	Constitution requires abortion on demand." 

Then at the bottom of the following page, and the top of the next, he says:

	We have apparently already passed the point at which abortion
	is available merely on demand.  If the statute at issue here
	is to be invalidated, the "demand" will not even have to be the
	result of an informed choice.  [476 US at 783-4]

Peter Ny.