HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: KILLfile created to prevent flamewar
Date: 1 Sep 92 02:41:53 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

cj@sgi.com writes:
-> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
-> |In article <p2flip8@fido.asd.sgi.com> C.J. Silverio says:
-> |>Do you know the opinions of the person you are criticizing?
-> |Not any more.
-> Uninformed repetitive flames bore me.  I won't waste
-> any more time on you.  Beth has the right idea:

i really don't think imprisoning women who have
abortions which beth disapproves of is the right idea.

        "For the woman, I'd support a jail sentence of
        at least a month, probably somewhat more, (six
        months to a year if we had unlimited space in
        non-hellhole prisons, but we don't), with hefty
        community service tacked on to that."
		<1992May25.234304.14516@midway.uchicago.edu>

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Mulvihill vs Chuck Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Keywords: yeah, right
Date: 23 Aug 92 20:42:39 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman) writes:
+eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
+>	However, I am not trying to argue the moral case for abortion.
+>I'm arguing abortion as an issue regarding sexual responsibility.
+
+That don't add up, Mr. Chuck. If this were truly the case, that you had
+no moral case to argue, why on earth would you be anti-abortion? 
+Pregnancy as punishment for being irresponsible? That's good for the
+child that results, isn't it? (But we'll only punish those that
+deserve it, right? Not victims of incest or rape, just those that
+do the dirty deed and don't want a child.))
+
+If you want to argue for people to _take_ greater responsibility, I'm
+all for it. Anti-abortionists want to cram it down people's throats.

I wasn't arguing the moral case for abortion for the thread being
discussed. I'm not in complete harmony with the anti-abortion folks
either. I am trying to argue for people to take greater responsibility.
In another post, I said that we don't need laws to foster communication
between family members.

I don't think pregnancy is a punishment or an affliction that needs to
be "cured" by an abortion. But one must take the same measures to avoid
getting pregnant as one should also take those same measures to avoid
getting HIV. HIV definitely doesn't give a damn if your condom breaks,
and once you're infected, you can't reverse the effects (currently). I
am advocating people have a more responsible attitude concerning sex, to
think about what the implications are, what happens if something goes
wrong, and what to do if something goes wrong.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:01:44 GMT

In <1992Aug31.225918.13549@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
In article <1992Aug31.144107.23778@acd4.acd.com>
   wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Aug30.040031.5439@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
    (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >>>
dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu 
   (Doug Holtsinger) writes: >>>>

>>>> I don't believe that I've ever insulted Ms. Garvin.

>>> denial is unhealthy doodie.  see your therapist.
 
>> Passive-aggressive behavior is also unhealthy, Jim.

> that is is, bill, that it is.

>> Your implication is extremely prejudicial.  

> what implication is that, bill?

i.e., "Who, me?"  

>> Are people in therapy somehow unworthy of your
>> respect?

> i don't know where you'd get that idea bill. can you
> tell me? do you think there's something unhealthy with
> suggesting that a person may need help gets it?

Only when it's done to derogate.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:41:59 GMT

In article <=ryyp=r@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

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

>> And abortion is not a matter of "trust", it's a matter of what's "right".  

> Of course it is!  If abortion isn't right for you, don't have one!

And if slavery isn't right for you, don't own a slave!


>-rocker


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: williamf@umbc1.umbc.edu
Subject: RE: Shocking News About Clinton!!!!
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore County
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:14:00 GMT

>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>] In article <l9ni49INNorq@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:
>] 
>] >	Regardless of his stance on abortion, Clinton does not support an
>] >American's right to choose.  This is ashame since he claims to be
>] >"pro-choice."  Well Gov. Clinton, I want to choose my doctor and where my
>] >kids can go to school.  I do not need the government telling me.
>] 
>] The way I understand it, Gov. Clinton advocates school choice but
>] does not support government financing of religious schools.
> 
   *My* understanding is that the Gov. does not support government subsidised
   school choice regardless of the schools affiliation.  Conservatives want
   parents to be able to write off the cost of private schools from their taxes
   The Gov. is correct on this.  Public financing of 'school choice' would spell
   the end of the public school system as we know it.  We'll look like Britain 
   with a pernicious class system up our wazoos.
     Stay Easy__
       TheBigBopper
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Another Clueless Newbie
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:14:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.031233.23455@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> cswicego@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Cynthia Swicegood) writes:
>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!
>
[back and forth deleted]
>Not as clueless as you think.
	But obviously clueless enough to re-quote three screens of stuff just
to add a one-line non-seqitur.  This really isn't going to add to your
credibility, such as it is, Ms. Swicegood.

>
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'



--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick)
Subject: Re: Daniel Dick and ignorance is bliss!
Organization: Ingres, an ASK Company, Alameda CA 94501
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:27:28 GMT

smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
: In article <1992Sep3.002843.17095@pony.Ingres.COM> dan@Ingres.COM
: (Daniel J. Dick) writes as if to illustrate the dangers of posting
: without thinking or even reading.  He started his rant in response to
: Susan Garvin's question: 
: 
: >: How is it that you know what Nyikos's point was, given that you
: >: didn't read his article?
: 

Stephen, if you want to behave like a total jackass and defend your own
side's misrepresentation, defend someone's childish mockery, and join in
yourself in more of the same, then I don't need or want your respect or
care at all about what you have to say.  Let's suffice it to say you're
in my kill file and you're welcome to place me in yours.

What I want is an intelligent discussion with people who are willing to
play by the standard rules of mature discussion--namely that they address
the arguement of the *opposing* side straight on instead of misrepresenting
it and mocking the misrepresentation.  Muster up inside yourself the courage
and honesty to face the issues as they are instead of wasting everybody's
time with your childish gibberish.  We don't want to hear it.

Get to the issues.  Is abortion right or wrong?  Have all arguements been
presented intelligently and addressed by the opposing side?  Are both sides
well represented?  Can we read the arguements of both sides here and be
spared of the childish mockery, blither-blather, and flame wars?  Or have
all the arguements come to a conclusion that some are unwilling to allow to
be heard?

Stephen and others here, I have talked with pro-choicers and pro-lifers who
have something intelligent to say--those who have real concerns.  Neither are
very pleased to have their time wasted in the stupidity of mockery.  I don't
like hearing my side mocked, and although I do appreciate a fairly heated
discussion that sometimes gets emotional, I do not appreciate hearing my
opponent misrepresented and mocked either.

I like the facts to be laid out on the table and to have opinions represented
by opponents *as they are* and addressed *as they are*.  I don't give a hang
about opinions nobody holds.  I don't give a hang how stupid someone says
someone else is.  I don't give a hang about any of this ongoing mockery.  I
do care about what *is* and do like to discuss this issue with reasonable
people.

So, let's cut the crap whoever you are, whichever side you are on, and get
to the point of discussing abortion unless of course you wish to tell the
world that your side has no case to argue.





Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion techniques and fetal survival
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:35:55 GMT

In article <BtxqKB.DBD.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

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

>>margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

>>> The legislation struck down in Colautti v. Franklin was a Pennsylvania
>>> law; since then Pennsylvania has passed new abortion restrictions.  These
>>> were challenged before the Supreme Court.  Some parts were struck down,
>>> but the requirement that two doctors be present, one just for the fetus,
>>> and similar provisions also relating to fetal survival in third-trimester
>>> abortions were *not* struck down.

>> So what?  Colautti v. Franklin has not been overturned in any
>> Supreme Court decision.  

> "There is no doubt that our holding today will allow some 
> govermental regulation of abortion that would have been
> prohibited under the language of cases such as Colautti v.
> Franklin 439 U.S. 379, 99 S.Ct. 675, 58 L.Ed.2d 596 (1979)
> and Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc. 
> supra."
>
> from Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (109 S.Ct. 3040
> (1989), p. 3058.


  "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) 


  "It is clear to me that requiring the performance of examinations
   and tests useful to determining whether a fetus is viable,
   when viability is possible, and when it would not be medically
   imprudent to do so, does not impose an undue burden on a 
   woman's abortion decision.  On this ground alone I would
   reject the suggestion that [section] 188.029 as interpreted
   is unconstitutional.  More to the point, however, just as I
   see no conflict between [section] 188.029 and Colautti or
   any decision of this Court concerning a state's ability to
   give effect to its interest in potential life, I see no
   conflict between [section] 188.029 and the Court's opinion
   in Akron."

   Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. at 530 (1989) 


>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: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Some call me...Drew)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:35:29 GMT
     <nyikos.714675779@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Some call me...Drew) writes:
>>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

[the "Former Fetus" sign]

>>I'd be shaken up too, but then blatant stupidity always shakes me up.
>
>My idea of blatant stupidity is this attitude of "I've got mine (right 
>to life), and to hell with anyone who got conceived less than 9 months ago."

Why is this stupid?  I've explained my rationale before.

You may not be able to distinguish between what I think I can live with 
myself and what I can advocate for others.  Personally, I am all in favor
of carrying to term whenever it doesn't place an undue strain on the
mother (and SHE gets to decide).  I applaud women who put their babies
up for adoption, and I doubly applaud those who decide to keep them under
trying circumstances.

Legally, however, I can't force anyone to do anything--women must have
the freedom to choose for themselves.  I would hope that many women who
feel they can carry the fetus to term would choose to do so, but I refuse
to tell them they must based on an arbitrary breakpoint.  Myleination (sp?)
is not something I know enough about to comment on, so I'd appreciate
references--I may change this stance (or not).  For now, however, I can
not in good conscience advocate banning abortion merely because the three-
or six-month odometer has ticked off.

If this is blatant stupidity, then there's nothing I can do about it--
that's how I feel.  To me, wearing a sign which is semantically equivalent
to "I breathed today!" is blatantly stupid.  I'm sorry you disagree.

-- 
"Me and you, a two man crew, 
 side by side we are united,
 we will never be divided...."

                                                  Au revoir, mon cherie.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33046 talk.politics.misc:41407
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Interesting Thought Construction...
Date: 23 Aug 92 19:44:03 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] In article <1992Aug17.161225.18174@pwcs.stpaul.gov> 
] chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

] >Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
] >"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger
] 
] Chris Lyman is a sexist for believing that all women think alike on 
] the issue of abortion.



Interesting how DearOldDoug is willing to call a thing
by its name when he sees it... and presumes that it 
is someone elses... but forgets that it is a quote
of his own words....

You Don't really mean to call yourself Sexist for what YOU have said....


ciao
drieux



-- 
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: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 3 Sep 1992 12:17:24 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <nyikos.715470407@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>I'm not sure what Suzanne's position is on these things, though I do 
>know she would not ban contraceptives, 


Hmm, Peter, maybe you better do a little research before you make state-
ments like this.  Did anyone save Suzanne's little gem about abortion
just being the 'first step', and contraceptive prohibition coming next?

Oh, yeah, I *believe* she was just kidding.  Sure I do.

Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham)
Subject: 4-6-8-10, ARE FFL's leaders men?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  2 Sep 1992 09:48 EST  

I hear this question has come up.  The answer is no.  I am not in any
form of leadership within FFL.  I pass on info for the organization as
a favor.

The deeper question is, why does it seem all the pro-life voices within 
this newsgroup are men?  (Ms. Forgach notwithstanding.)  The answers are
simple:

(1) Most Usenet subscribers are computer scientists and/or engineers.
    For better or for worse, these are men.  For the time being.
(2) The overwhelming majority of pro-choice voices here are also men.
    The reason for this is also (1).

The bottom line is, you can't use the population of this newsgroup as
a serious scientific study of anything.  You can't even really use it
as the basis of a good flame.

If anyone doubts that not only the leadership, but also the *membership*,
of Feminists for Life is overwhelmingly composed of women, send e-mail and
I'll send you enough names to set you straight in a hurry.  If anyone doubts
that the membership of Feminists for Life is mostly non-stay-at-home mothers,
I can set you straight on that issue as well.

So there are no female members of FFL speaking up in this newsgroup.  If
that situation continues (which it may not), you can draw no conclusions
whatsoever about FFL as a result.  Cheers.

RG

"[Abortion is] the ultimate exploitation of women."  -  Alice Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 07:26:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.023017.15911@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@c
d.ge.com> writes:
>smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes to chaneyhall
>-> Get some help.  I don't know if your hatred of women
>-> is due to the fact that your biological mother gave
>-> you up for adoption, or due to the abuse you
>-> received from your adoptive parents, or because
>-> normal women typically reject the advances of
>-> immature boys.  I do know that you have emotional
>-> problems that can't be solved on the net.
>
>hmmmm. bill overpeck told me earlier today that it was
>prejudicial to suggest that someone seek psychiatric
>help when i suggested that DODie do so.

I know.  I saw.  I asked him why he was so sure that we
were being insincere.  I hope that Dennis and DOD do
get some help.  I assumed that you were sincere, too.
I
>i wonder if he'll think the same here.

No doubt.  He seems to think that only he is allowed
to comment on blatantly obvious behavior, for some
reason.  M

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: All discrimination is not equal -- or wrong
Date: 30 Aug 92 17:45:25 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Aug27.215753.8063@rigel.econ.uga.edu> 
mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:

>Stephen Chaney writes:

>> The same kind of discrimination that leads friends of yours, like PatricKKK
>> Humphrey, to refer to people like me as "black ass".

> I agree that Patrick may have gone below the belt with that comment, but I
> cannot blame him for becoming frustrated with a person who continually 
> insists that the sky is green, even when confronted with a moutain of
> evidence to contradict him.  Knowing how long Patrick has been on t.a.,
> dealing with twits like yourself, I can only marvel at his self-restraint
> for going on this long without sinking to that level.

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.  

 
>Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)


Doug Holtsinger
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34243 alt.abortion.inequity:3366
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 1 Sep 92 04:52:30 GMT
     <1992Aug27.045340.13162@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> 
     <1992Aug31.162715.17289@advtech.uswest.com>
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>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".

No, on the basis of "those who object need not get one, those who
do not object will not have to worry about self-induced hysterectomies".

>You DO NOT occupy the moral high ground here.  You too are trying to
>force your belief system on others.

She is trying to occupy the middle ground and not mandate ANY action
or beliefs.

>>If you are not trying to enact legislation that would limit
>>the availability of abortion, than please ignore my request, for
>>I wouldn't dream of trying to play the role of Thought Police and
>>dictate what people must believe.
>
>Of COURSE not.  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.

She is not forcing anyone.  No one is knocking on your door, asking you
to sign a belief statement about fetuses.  You may believe whatever you
wish.

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

That's correct -- none.

I'm going to try another tack here.

John, you DO realize that the fetus/embryo/baby/whatever is completely
disjoint from the father's body, don't you?  That the father suffers no
true physical effects?  That the mother carries the kid, for want of a
better term, with NO physical help from the father?

The woman does all the physical work of a pregnancy.  Why, then, should
the man have any say in whether or not she chooses to go through nine
months of literally back-breaking labor (no pun intended -- sorry) when
he cannot share the burden?  The man can walk away AT ANY TIME; the woman
does not have that luxury.

How you can claim that the man and woman should have equal rights in the
decision is beyond me, when they don't share equally in the actual work
of hosting this new life.

-- 
"Me and you, a two man crew, 
 side by side we are united,
 we will never be divided...."

                                                  Au revoir, mon cherie.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion