HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: What if???
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  3 Sep 92 17:26:36 GMT

In <ywxyd5c@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:

>>What if the human fetus developed on the outside of the mothers stomach,
>>where everyone could see the eyes, ears, nose, etc. forming?

>It would be even that incredibly MORE difficult to be pregnant.
>Also, the fetus would be vulnerable to the slightest bumps,
>temperature changes, and infection, and it's not likely we'd
>GET many newborns.

Not necessarily.  Kangaroos do develop outside their mothers
(mostly in the pouch, true, but still visible) starting
at a stage where humans are still called embryos, rather than fetuses, 
and they've been around many millions of years longer than humans.

>>How tragic future generations will view our blindsided stupidity.

>Well, yours anyway.

Wrong.  See above.

Peter Ny.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion techniques and fetal survival
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:40:17 GMT

In article <Bu19GB.5vG.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

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

>>  "Unlike the plurality, I do not understand these viability
>>   testing requirements to conflict with any of the Court's
>>   past decisions concerning state regulation of abortion."
>>
>>   Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. at 525 (1989) 

> Further, it in no way contradicts the fact that restrictions
> that were not allowed under Colautti are allowed under Webster.


Justice Sandra Day O'Connor disagrees with you.


>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: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: OH, DOUG...
Date: 1 Sep 1992 16:56:45 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


   Ah, the Holtsinger Shuffle.  Obviously your keeper did'nt do a
good job of explaining my question.  I NEVER asked you about some
pending, or even hypothetical legislation.  I simply asked you if
there was any circumstances under which you would support a woman
seeking an elective abortion.  There is no law that requires some
answer to this question from you.  But as long as you keep trying
to weasel out of answering, I shall keep asking it.  I know of no
easier way to show all who read this group what your true feeling
is on the matter of choice.  If you think that by your refusal to
answer the question, you are avoiding revealing your genuine view
of abortion, then you are a bigger idiot than I thought.  Whining
about one tenth of one percent of the abortions in America is not
a very effective way of hiding your feelings about the 99.9% that
you also oppose.  You are a chickenshit, Doug.  Take a stand, and
show that you oppose ALL choice.  You will still look like a real
facist.  But you won't look as much like the spineless idiot that
you look like now.
-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 19:57:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <24630@oasys.dt.navy.mil>  bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
> In talk.abortion, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
> >Now Gordon, just because Doug Holtsinger ridicules the beliefs of Judaism
> >in his .sig doesn't mean that you should stoop to his level.  Besides,
> >it's only cannibalism if you really believe in transubstantiation.
>
> Well, for those who believe that an entity can slice off part of itself,
> transform it into the mere body of a human (one that has to go through
> all the pains and agonies of birth, growing up, puberty, adulthood,
> and death) and then in effect have two omnipotent entities that are
> approximately equivalent, but have father/son relationship, but wait,
> let's throw in a third mysterious ethereal entity (because we like threes,
> although with people it is only twos we like) and then still believe
> it to be a single entity, transubstantiation is a minor thing.

Well, I'd find it hard to swallow.  :-)  But the point is, it's not
cannibalism unless you believe in transubstantiation, hence it could not
be declared illegal on the grounds of cannibalism because that would be
legislating a religious belief (i.e., that transubstantiation is real),
just as it would be to make abortion illegal because you think that fetuses
have souls.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jamcdani@zia.ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: Re: And Now, You're A Coatrack!! Was: without even being asked ....
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:05:06 GMT

In article <adams.714840296@spssig>  writes:
> trashman@crud.mn.org (Barry Schwartz) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Aug15.224854.14033@csus.edu>
> >        chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> 
>  
>]========================================================================
> >]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".
>  
>]========================================================================
> 
> >It is a shame to lose one's mind.
> 
> Or to not have a mind. [Dan Quayle's quote FITS here!]

"...how true that is." Geez, do I have to admit that Mr. Potatoe Head 
and I are from the same state?!?
 
>  -Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
"All we ever look for: a god...a drug...a great big hug." -KaTe Bush
 Big ol' IU taking the opinions of one undergrad?!? Yeah, right....
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions"
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:11:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep02.233517.35825@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

[massive deletions]

#Larry Margolis, wondering why Dishonest Doug relies on the description
#of a "pro-abort" regarding the organization, but then questions the
#veracity of the organization's facts on the grounds that it's a
#"pro-abortion organization".

DOD never answered this, did he?

I wonder why.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: REWRITING HISTORY: Adulterated RvW versions: FAQ, recent post...
Keywords: may be, is, established fact
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:43:40 GMT

In article <nyikos.714864342@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

> [...] 
> Now, when this is reprinted, as in the FAQ and a recent otherwise helpful
> long post, usually something is substituted for the "at 149" [which means:
> "on p. 149"] and this is certainly OK.  What is not OK is the way these
> secondary and tertiary sources substitute "is" for the "may be" in the
> last line.
>
> In fairness, the people who made the alteration probably thought
> they were doing Harry Blackmun a favor by replacing his (bizarre, in view 
> of the earlier "now-established medical fact") "may be" with something
> that he probably intended to put there in the first place.

I've seen another adulterated version of Roe v. Wade.  Elizabeth 
Bartley recently re-posted an article written by Virginia Metze
which contained an omission about the "health" exception for
post-viability abortions.  The last sentence in the included 
paragraph omits the exception to save the "health" of the mother. 


-----
>From hemlock.cray.com!timbuk.cray.com!uunet!wupost!m.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!usenet Mon Sep 30 11:18:34 1991
Article: 39347 of talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: METZE@uimrlm.mrl.uiuc.edu (Virginia Metze)
Subject: excerpts from Roe v Wade
Organization: Ginny Metze, not speaking for anyone but myself
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 91 19:06:21 CDT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

[... deletions ...]

"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in
potential life, the 'compelling' point is at viability.  This is so
because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful
life outside the mother's womb.  State regulation protective
of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological
justifications.  If the State is interested in protecting fetal
life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion
during that period except when it is necessary to preserve the life
of the mother.

...


[... deletions ...]

Excerpted from excerpts from Roe v Wade in Constitutional Law and 
Individual Rights in Constitutional Law, Cases and Materials,
1973 Supplement, by Gerald Gunther and Noel T. Dowling
----

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.discrimination
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: All discrimination is not equal -- or wrong
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 05:38:29 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  <AWERLING.92Aug31165912@dante.nmsu.edu>  awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
> In article <1992Aug30.174525.8155@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsing
>
> >   Once people condone Patrick Humphrey's use of the term "fat black
> >   ass" to describe Steve Chaney, other people will get the idea that
> >   it's acceptable to use the term to describe African-Americans as
> >   long as their reasons are "good enough".  There are NO good reasons
> >   for calling someone a "fat black ass".
>
> >   Patrick Humphrey's use of the term "fat black ass" should be strongly
> >   condemned, and I'm outraged that any person could justify the use of
> >   that term because the target of the insult "deserved" it.  NOBODY
> >   deserves to be called such a name.
>
> I missed this entire conversation,

If you missed it, I should point out that Doug's comments imply that
Mr. Humphrey called Chaney a fat black ass, and that is not true.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
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.
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 07:13:41 GMT

I agree with rocker.  This case has nothing to do with Nyikos'
own misogyny.

As an aside, this Charles Wysong that Nyikos keeps thanking
is, if I'm not mistaken, head of a charming little group
called the American Rights Coalition.  This group passes
out little cards outside clinics that list "abortion
complications" and ask that women call if they have any
of the listed symptoms.  (One listed symptom is "headaches.")
If a woman does call them, they don't offer medical advice,
they offer referrals to their pet lawyers.  The group also
produces a flier called "The Abortion Injury Report," which
supposedly reports on such complications, but often engages
in the sort of speculation that Nyikos loves.  (One that
caught my attention was a claim that Gilda Radner's ovarian
cancer was caused by an abortion.  My oncologist assures
me that no studies have shown any correlation, much less
any causation between prior abortions and ovarian cancer.
In fact, women who have never been pregnant are more likely
to have the disease than women who have not.)

When the ARC mailed letters to clinic employees asking that
they report any health code violations to the ARC (oddly
enough, they did not suggest contacting any legitimate
authorities), a friend of mine called them.  They
asked her if she had any problems following her abortion.
(They didn't ask why she was calling.  She said, "Hello,
my name is Anne."  They responded by asking about her
abortion.)  She told them that she had an abortion, and
five years later had a baby, and seven years later had
another baby.  This second child has a slight speech
impediment.  They recommended that she contact a lawyer
since, in their belief, her child's speech impediment
could be due to her prior abortion.

I'm not surprised that Nyikos gets his information from
them.

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: List of unsubstantiated accusations by Susan Garvin
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:56:32 GMT

In article <=2cnxb=.ray@netcom.com> 
ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

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

>> List of unsubstantiated accusations by Susan Garvin against me:

> Without commenting on the veracity of Mr. Holtsinger's accusations,
> I will merely note that they are all unsubstantiated by either quotes 
> or references.  Perhaps Mr. Holtsinger would care to try for a more 
> compelling approach to making his case?


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

    > I have more sources which I shall post shortly. 

    "(As soon as he makes them up.)"

          garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) 
          <1992Aug09.021608.58582@cs.cmu.edu> 



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

    "We need more pro-forcers like Holtsinger who are willing
     to doctor quotes that are easily checked, too.  What did
     you delete from the PP quote, DOD?"

          garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
          <1992Jul20.203335.29132@cs.cmu.edu>



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

    "(I'd prefer to think that Nyikos is merely
     ignorant rather than a willful liar like Holtsinger until
     I see more from him.)"

          garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
          <BtnGoJ.Msz.2@cs.cmu.edu>


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

    "I accomplished what I meant to accomplish -
     I showed that your selective editing of people's words
     is not limited to net articles, but to published works
     as well."

          sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
          <1992Jul12.150410.7479@ncsu.edu>


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Item for Chaney's study of abortion--adult/child sex link.
Keywords: Nyikos failing other arguments goes for guilt by association
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:36:50 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>> QUOTE OF THE DAY:
>>>       Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this?
>>>                               --Stephen A Chaney

>> As a pro-choicer I'd have to say no, not at all. 

> "This" could refer to lots of things.  I didn't want you to take it
> only in Mr. Chaney's original sense of the word, and I'm glad to see
> you agree that Dr. Chepko did some bad things, if he was guilty as
> charged.  [er, you do agree, don't you???]

How kind of you to not quote Mr. King completely.  I noticed that you
selectively edited Ms. McDaniel's response too.  Here's the complete
statement, just to do Mr. King justice.

>> As a pro-choicer I'd have to say no, not at all.  I find that both
>> your and Chaney need to resort to this silly form of argument mildly
>> amusing.  I think you do are both a credit to your side of the 
>> debate when you stoop to this guilt by association argument.  I
>> not only support your right to spew this drivel, but I encourage you
>> both to continue.

Just to add my two cents, I fail to see how the abortion issue hinges on
the alleged proclivities of one individual abortionist.  You might as well
say that professional basketball is awful and nasty because of the alleged
sexcapades of one Wilt Chamberlain.

Adding another two to make four cents, I find mildly amusing that you would
attempt to twist Mr. Chaney's words to make some sort of 'point.'
Er, what was it?

-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Child ProtectionIsm
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 09:59:22 GMT

sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
] In article <1992Sep1.204314.19152@pwcs.stpaul.gov>, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
] > 
] Failure to implant and those 1/3 failures after conception you are talking about are
] most often from no fault of the woman, in which case she can not be blamed.

Why?

Note where below you show an absence of understanding
of the fetal endangerment from conception that sauna's
and jacuzzi's present to PersonsFromConception....

] > 
] > Bully for her.  You might ask her if a pregnant woman should be charged with
] > child endangerment for smoking, drinking or sitting in a sauna.
] Absolutely - anything that clearly endangers the life of the baby.  As another
] opinion, I think sauna's are debatable (in Japan they are encouraged to go to
] saunas during pregnancy and are discouraged from going into cold water), but
] smoking and excessive drinking are endangerment.


Given that the stats on many cities air quality list them
in the catagories where they are one or two pack of cigarettes
a day - would you also follow through with the logical understanding
that any woman found to be living in these areas is obviously
also intent upon fetal endangerment.....


That a culture may advocate a sequence of events, as with your
japanese cultural moment above, is not the sort of thing to
base one's scientific approach to life... the CDC is still
working on the impact that Heat, from sauna's and the like,
have upon the early development.....

So it seems that you are interested in the 'socially chic'
concern, but not really about 'fetal endangerment.'

Thank you for stepping forward and being honest....

ciao
drieux


-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:44:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.011951.1954@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>> You loose.  Just by not using your head.

> MissBitch, of course, is an expert at not using her head.

Why do you find it necessary to resort to these kinds of childish
insults?
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Keywords: Reinforcements
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:19:34 GMT
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus

In article <1992Aug27.013022.2371@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> 
|> Roe v. Wade created a constitutional right to kill certain 
|> members of the human species by expanding on the boundaries
|> of the right to privacy. 
|>

No, it simple expands a woman's right to do with her body
as she chooses and prevents the government and other 
individuals from deciding for her.
 
|> 
|> People have constitutional ``rights'', governments don't.

The US government, technically, derives its power from the
governed, that is people give certian rights and freedoms
to the government in return for an ordered system. Thus
the government is granted certian rights and powers by the
Constitution and the people are granted others.
   
|> 
|> > The constitution does not prohibit the people from killing
|> > each other, in fact, it could be argued that since it is 
|> > not prohibited, it is a right of the people.
|> 
|> The constitution gives the people the right to commit murder?
|> 

Your statement is a bit misleading, in the context of abortion,
since abortion is not murder. However, the constitution does
grant the people the right to kill each other since that right
is not specifically prohibited and the Constitution grants all
rights not specifically prohibited by the federal or state
governments to the people. Now, state and federal governments
do put restrictions on how we may kill each other, just as they
put restrictions on how we may conduct business, worship god(s),
interact socially and sexually, what goods we may purchase etc; but
your right to take my life or mine to take yours has not been
prohibited. You may exercise that right whenever you or the
situation you are in meets the proper state and federal guidelines 
for you to do so legally.

-- 
--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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion