HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Item for Chaney's study of abortion--adult/child sex link.
Keywords: Nyikos failing other arguments goes for guilt by association
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:04:21 GMT

In <1992Aug27.120315.9416@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>In article <nyikos.714859323@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <1992Aug25.231443.21218@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>> > Does the fact that this doctor did bad things some how 
>> >discredit the pro-choice movement?
>> 
>> Of course not, no more than a few crazy bombers discredit the whole
>> pro-life movement.

>That is not at all accurate.  The "doctor" in question is a sick
>man, if the charges are true, and very harmful, but there is nothing
>to indicate that his foul behavior is an outgrowth, by-product, or
>in any way connected to the fact that he performed abortions.

>The clinic bombings are also the behavior of sick people, but the
>difference is that the bombings are directly attributable to their
>"pro-life" beliefs.

If the clinics had been torched instead of bombed, would you be so
quick to conclude any of this?  Or would you entertain the possibility
that 
(1) the torching was an inside job to collect insurance and try to 
discredit the pro-lifers by blaming them?
(2) the torching was the work of a pyromaniac who had never said
a pro-life sentence in his life and therefore would never be suspected
of the act.

Here in Columbia there is a clinic, Southern Women's Services, which
seems ripe for a torching of the (1) variety.  It looks like a seedy
old motel that AAA would not even think of listing.  If they have
enough insurance, they must be awfully tempted to go the (1) route
and replace it with a clinic that looks like a health center instead
of a roach motel.

BTW this clinic did over 1,500 abortions last year.

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: FiscalPropriety in a PetriDish
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 16:38:19 GMT


In the following post Sarah puts forward an Almost
viable notion of a Fiscally Conservative approach.

I would, though, wish to suggest that she consider the
utilization of an 'off shore' banking structure wherein
the Capital Appreciation of said trust is not liable
to Federal Taxes, and thus the baseline development can
grow at a more accelerated rate. Then as one reaches
a 'maturing age' one can enter into the sort of 'living will'
status, so that there is no 'probate court' costs as one
inherits the estate of these PersonsInThePetriDish....

I give her points for correct thnking, but she still
seems to be the victim of BleedingHeartWimpLiberalFiscalMyopia.

ciao
drieux

smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
] In article <1992Aug20.062552.33853@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
] >In  <1992Aug20.021010.16000@zooid.guild.org>  Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
] >>
] >> But I WOULD like to see the foetus recognised as a person,
] >
] >And I'd like to see myself recognized as emperor of the world.
] >I mean, the fact that I'm not shouldn't make any difference, right?  :-) 
] 
] Hey, I think this Will guy is on to something here.  I mean look guys (and 
] pay attention all you out there who have any income or assets you want to 
] protect).  First you go out and get some in-vitro fertilization done.  Then 
] you get SS numbers for each of the zygotes.  Then you set up
] a series of Trusts (call them Petri Dish #1 Trust, Petri Dish #2 Trust,...)
] and you divert all you income and assets through those trusts with the 
] zygotes as beneficieries.  Make yourself trustee and pay yourself an
] income from the trust, but your home and everything else is a business
] expense.   You can even have the zygotes living in a state like Texas with 
] no state income tax while you live in a cool state like California.  And 
] since these zygotes would stay  frozen indefinitely, this setup could
] go on for perpetuity.  Now I don't have all the details worked out here, 
] but I think this could revolutioniize financial planning strategies.
] 
] Of course, it would mean constructing the laws carefully so that
] the right to bodily autonomy was explicitly protected.  But I can see
] a lot of possible benefits here.
] 
] Sarah McCabe


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 31 Aug 1992 18:54:04 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Aug31.162715.17289@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.045340.13162@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:

>>I don't think it is an unreasonable request to ask that those
>>who are trying legislate what actions I may take with my own body
>>base that legislation on something more than "because I say so."

>?????  But that is JUST what YOU are doing.  You are trying to make
>the right to abortion a law on the basis of "because I say so".

>All you want to do is try to force people to believe
>that a fetus is not a human being, and should not have human rights.

>I have as much right to enforce my belief system on you, as you do
>to enforce yours on me.

>John
>stevens@uswest.com

I don't want to waste a lot of net bandwidth on this, but John'a
argument here is really lame. In essence, he is claiming that
because someone does not allow him to impose your belief system
on them, they are imposing their belief system on him. 

There is a big difference between a non-action and an action. John
seem to claim that they are the same.

Eric
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: 1 Sep 1992 16:32:06 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <9bye939@Unify.Com> sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
>I agree!  I just started reading this News group and am shocked at the useless
>ramblings - I was hoping for some rational, thought provoking discussions, not
>a lot of clearly false opinions - on both sides of the arguments.
>Sean P. Curley	


To which you haven't contributed your own mite of "clearly false opinions",
now, have you?


You *could* try again to start your own 'kinder and gentler' version of this
discussion group by entertaining us all with a definition of a clearly
false opinion.....



Adrienne Regard
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:47:54 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug28.023626.18720@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) wrote:
> 
> In article <lefty-260892170513@lefty.apple.com> 
> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> 
> >dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>  
> >>decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >>> Fetuses had never received legal protection under the law,
> 
> >> This statement is not correct.
> 
> > Well, by all means, _correct_ it
> 
> Before Roe v. Wade was handed down, many states had abortion
> laws which gave protection to fetuses.  

Is that so?  Can you cite a specific example?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:22:58 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <1992Aug27.200240.10656@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

}Surely you are glad for the anti-homicide laws that protect YOU, as best
}they can, from getting knifed and mugged on the street.   Does that make
}you a 'control freak', because you _are_?   Don't be stupid.

No.  Again I say no.  I am not glad for the anti-homicide laws.  I do 
not believe they protect me.  I think I have mentioned that before.
I don't believe that they "protect" anybody.  You may well consider
me stupid, but you should know better than believe that I am grateful
for the anti-homicide laws.  And quit calling me shirley.

}Seems to me you simply do not wish to look at the obvious.

It seems to me that you and I disagree on what is obvious, rather
than assuming that I do not wish to look at it.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33471 alt.flame:12333
From: trashman@crud.mn.org (Barry Schwartz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: The Man With No Brain (Was: The world...)
Date: 26 Aug 92 00:38:00 GMT
Organization: TSAKC-TC

In article <exuptr.316.713829693@exu.ericsson.se>
        exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:

]What's the big deal with homophobia these days anyway?  The term seems to
]imply that you are either gay or you fear gay.  I personally am a homo-
]agnostic.

What does that mean, that you don't know whether or not god is gay?


--
Barry Schwartz        trashman@crud.mn.org
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
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
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:19:04 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> Steve Chaney (Propellor Boy) writes:

>>> Steve, you're a frigging PSYCHIC! How do you know these people so
>>> well?

>> Let me correct your typo: "Steve, you're a frigging PSYCHOTIC!"

>   Makin fun of mental illness isn't funny dork. I guess I'll let this
> one go though since you're obviously one desperate fella. I'd probably
> be pretty dull too, if I had a ceberal cavity filled with infected pus
> leftover from the last time I tried to think.

I apologize; there's no way you could ever be frigging _anything_.  And making
fun of you is _much_ funnier.  Btw, how much of what you write is from personal
experience?

>> But you're wrong, Propellor Boy, Franklin is mired too deeply in his self-
>> pity to behave psychotically.  Your statement seems to be a pretty accurate
>> self assessment, though.  I like you much better when you're honest.

> This is rather entertaining. Once again you made a statement Chris
> that's about as substantiated as many of Hussein's eloquent points.
> How do I wallow in self-pity dear friend? You may as well explain this,
> because as it stands, it seems like a weak-kneed attempt at a flame. Surely
> you can do better? Thanks, I look forward to your elaboration.

At least I haven't been caught sucking up to the D'arse-thing, a tiny-minded
doink who glories in petty vendettas, or Chaneyhall, whose choleric ravings
are moving further and further into the lunatic fringe.  To the best of my
knowledge, you haven't attempted to say anything of substance since May.
Please note that I say 'attempted.'  You've actually said very little of
substance since the first time you entered 'rn.'

I choose not to flame you full-force; if this makes for a 'weak-kneed attempt at
a flame,' so be it.  Better to stand on weak knees than to be in your position:
on hands and knees tearily whimpering, "Flame me not!"

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge  (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:08:55 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Aug25.171206.12387@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
## = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
### = (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#### = (Michael Loomis) writes:
#
#### I am gay.  I strongly resent Mr. Nyikos's comparison between gay-bashing
#### and abortion or infanticide. 
#[...]
#### Third trimester abortion and infanticide involve the killing of beings
#### not yet in the social order
#
### I wonder...how many pro-choicers share Mr. Loomis's view of infanticide?
### How many agree that newborn babies are not yet appropriate objects for
### ethics?
#
##I don't think you're going to get any answers from the pro-choicers  
##on this newsgroup.  Michael Loomis has occasionally expressed the
##view that infanticide is not wrong, and I've never seen a pro-choicer
##disagree with that view. 
#
#Pro-choicers, attennnnnnnn-SHUN!
#
#Sound off:  Which pro-choicers believe that "newborn babies are not
#yet appropriate objects for ethics"?  I am diametrically opposed to
#that statement.

I disagree with the statement "newborn babies are not yet appropriate
objects for ethics."  

#   Answer loud and clear...
#   Answer fast.
#   Make Doogie cry and look like an ass.  Again.

You do know that DOD won't acknowledge his error - he'd
rather make up a few quotes and edit our text.  

##I think some pro-choicers on the net don't want to acknowledge 
##the existence of extremists on their side, because if they did, 
##they couldn't bash the extremists on the pro-life side without 
##looking a little hypocritical. 
#
#Hey, *I'm* an extremist.  I'll bet others would "acknowledge" it.

I'll acknowledge it.  I'll also express my admiration for it.

#Because remember this, you asexual liar:  You will take away a woman's
#right to choose over my dead body, or I'll keep that right over yours.
#
#There's no middle ground in my book.  Though it sounds overly dramatic,
#the fight over abortion is but the tip of the iceberg: does America go
#FASCIST, as it's headed, or do we restore our land of the free?  Do you
#want religious fanatics in our bedrooms, schools and workplaces, or do we
#restore tolerance, compassion and freedom?  Better make up your minds
#soon.  That was a virtual parade of far-right extremists you just saw
#at the Republican convention.  'Course, if you're white, well-off,
#loudly Christian, and bigotted as hell, you *may* be under the illusion
#that you're OK.  Heh heh.

I've been away - did DOD denounce Pat Buchanan's racist and homophobic
speech in Houston, or is he trying to ignore it?  Did he comment
on Bush's praise of the cops who attacked the ACT UP protesters?

Susan,
who walked into the Dome just in time to hear Dan Quayle say, "Bill
Clinton is no Ronald Reagan."
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34990 alt.abortion.inequity:3512
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:30:33 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.220014.23413@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (D
>avid Knapp) writes:

>>Most northern European countries although I would have to read up on
>>current policies for those countries.

Netherlands, And Germany readily come to mind. I imagine, although I'm
not sure, that Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Belgium and perhaps Norway
are not very much different, knowing somewhat what their lifestyles are.

>Try Germany, for example.  The zygote is a person at implantation,
>legally defined as 14 days after conception, and is then entitled
>to protection under the German constitution.  The debate has been
>over whether the mother has rights superior to the unborn child's,
>not whether the zygote is a person or not.

This statement is incorrect. The German law was changed about two months
ago to reflect its new constituency. If I remember correctly, the new
law allows for abortions up to at least the first tri-mester, with a
doctor's concurring opinion. (Guess how much that will retard abortion)
I also believe it allows for abortions quite late into term for medical
reasons such as damage or severe threat to the health of the woman,
although these portions would have to be confirmed. I read this in the
newspaper, but no longer have the article (obviously).

Oh, as an addendum, in Germany, there were actually two sets of laws
pertaining to whether or not it was legal. What was E. Germany still
had the laws as listed by the old communist government, which really
was abortion on demand, while the law that applied to *doctors* in W.
germany disallowed abortions, as you state above. The people who wanted
an abortion had simply to cross the old border, and were free to get
one.

>Or try Ireland, which has had more recent publicity.  But it doesn't
>quite have the size, power, and influence of Germany.

Ireland, whatever anyone may say about it, is a relatively backwards
country. Their Catholicism is strangling them, but even they, in their
one-track mindedness, could not condone forcing a 12 y-o rape victim
to have a baby. Need more be said?

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: If I wanted to have my organs ized, I'd have done it myself.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:14:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.001742.3923@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.141415.3923@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (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.  
>
>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.

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

>Sarah McCabe

John
stevens@uswest.com
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Abortion safer than giving birth
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 06:29:05 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>In <1992Sep01.063728.32934@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>>In  <nyikos.715300439@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>
>>> Thank you.  I saved the info you listed below, although the first
>>> table is extremely suspect, and there's nothing to go on.  But I will
>>> study the rest of the info very carefully.

>>Why is it suspect?  Because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions?

>No. Because it does not fit in with what I read in _Aborted Women, Silent
>No More_ nor with what I have learned from Charles Wysong, of the
>American Rights Coalition, both directly and from his _Abortion Injury
>Report_.  I'll have lots more to say over the next couple of months.

You may have missed a previous discussion about Reardon's book.
Ron Graham, posting for Feminists for Life, repeats the book's
claim that abortion has a 10% rate of "physical complication",
while childbirth allegedly has a similar rate of 2%.  I asked 
under what definition this could possibly be true, since the 
C-section rate in this country averages ~30%.  (Local rates vary
from around 17% to, in one hospital, 47%)

In his reply, Graham admitted that the definition Reardon gave
was vague, at best, and that he would be researching the claim
further.  The results of such research have never been posted.

Therefore, while I have no reason to disbelieve stats from the
Guttmacher Institute, (the only rebuttals I've seen have been
along the lines of "That can't be right!") I have ample reason
to believe that Reardon is either deliberately misrepresenting
or using definitions that are so nonstandard as to render
conclusions drawn from them to be worthless.

If you'd like statistics from a source almost guaranteed to be
unbiased, I would suggest a weighty tome entitled _Statistical
Abstract of the United States_.  (Is that the correct title,
netters?)  It doesn't make great bedtime reading, but it contains
much in the way of facts.  I have no idea what sort of abortion
statistics it might carry, having mostly used it for demographic
info, but I don't doubt it has _something_.  This book, and 
similar ones, should be available at any library reference desk.
If it doesn't have what you're looking for, the reference 
librarian can tell you what book will.

If you're just looking for something to quote to push an agenda,
however, feel free to stick with Reardon.  Don't expect to be
taken seriously, though.

                        -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Campbell theory of abortion
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 01:56:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.210114.29012@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Not at all, I was pointing out that the original poster was
>using euphemisms to describe abortion procedures.  An abortion
>kills a human being, and many pro-choicers don't seem willing
>to confront that fact. 

There you go, Doggie, lying again.  Your statement is simply not true in two
critical areas.  The first is that abortion does NOT kill a human being,
except very possibly for late term (seventh through ninth month) abortions,
which are very much in the minority and almost certainly to save the life
of the pregnant woman.

The second area in which you are lying is that you say pro-choicers don't
confront the fact that a human life (not a human being) is being killed in
an abortion.  I am certain that most woman who get abortions are aware of
this fact, yet they abort anyway.  I think they should be allowed this choice,
and I don't think they need additional abuse heaped on them for making this
decision.  I know of no pro-choice people that are not aware that a potential
human is being killed by the procedure.

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

"Calvin Coolidge looks as if he had been weaned on a pickle."
		-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Help Me Understand (was Re: Not So Good Bumper Sticker)
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:34:11 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug25.001045.11063@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
> 
> In article <92230.184521ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET> <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET> writes:
> >
> >I've challenged H.H. Reverent Holtsinger to defend his curious habit
> >to rename pro-choicers (like myself) into "pro-abortionists."
> 
> Here is our reason for labeling you pro-abortion:
> 
> If you were pro-choice, why is it that pro-choice does not mean legalizing
> drugs? We have control of one's own body and privacy to invoke here.
> 
> How about school choice? Pro-choice should include the right to choose
> whichever school you go to, rather than the one the school district forces
> you to go to.
> 
> Pro-choice is not about choice; it's about abortion, unrestricted, for
> free. By the tax dollars of the majority of Americans who are unwilling to
> pay for such a thing.

This a specious nonsense, even for you, Chaney.

If you were _really_ pro-life, you'd refuse to have an infection treated.

If you were _really_ pro-life, you'd never give your cat a flea bath or
your dog a deworming.

If you were _really_ pro-life, you'd starve yourself to death immediately
rather than kill a plant or animal for sustenance.

Not that we wouldn't necessarily appreciate this...

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion