HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:14:06 GMT

cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
->garvin+@cs.cmu.edu writes:
->|nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->|#Granted, for some it is a major inconvenience. That's why I prefer a 4-hour
->|#waiting period.  Gives the woman time to go out and have lunch, or
->|#whatever, and study the information on risks, etc. without clinic employees
->|#hurrying her along.

->|The sidewalk harassers here frequently urge patients entering the
->|clinic to go to a nearby restaurant, eat something, and think over
->|their decision.  I see that Petey Honey joins them in either their
->|ignorance or their deviousness.  The patients always point out that
->|they have been instructed not to eat before the procedure, and they
->|often ask if the harasser thinks that they're stupid enough to disobey
->|a doctor's instructions.  [...]

->This is amazingly disgusting.  

->Every time waiting periods are discussed in this group by
->pro-lifers, I am more & more convinced that they're a coverup
->for an attempt to prevent women from exercising their rights.

->We have Petey Honey & other sidewalk "counsellors" advocating
->that they do something that prevent them from having even minor
->surgery, and endanger their lives if they do.

->We have Overpeck talking in his condescending way about women
->under stress making bad decisions, and about how they need
->counselling.

->We see terrorists frightening abortion providers into giving
->up their practices.

->They're trying to do an end-run around the law.  Having failed
->to make abortion illegal, they now try to make it difficult for
->a woman to carry her decision through.

you're right. hell, some of these anti-choice types
even want to imprison women for having the abortions
they want to ban.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47795 news.admin.misc:328
From: cudep@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Ian Dickinson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Clearly NOT a FORGERY
Date: 13 Nov 1992 11:09:00 -0000
Organization: Team Limpid's Meathead With Aptitude - Kunst und Wahnsinn
NNTP-Posting-Host: spatula.csv.warwick.ac.uk

In article <1992Nov12.185424.18085@wolves.uucp> news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den) writes:
>Usenet has gotten to the point where it is nearly impossible, and mostly
>useless to try and map it anymore.  Brian Reid's postscript maps are
>nice, but essentially meaningless since most of the DNS-only hosts
>(about 60% of netnews sites I'd guess) don't appear there.

Yes and it's a pity...

That's another reason why warwick.uucp is still in the maps, even though we
haven't run UUCP for many a year.  It makes our long/lat available.

Perhaps we need an alternative way to register long/lat data for Brian
to make use of?

The other reason (as previously mentioned) is so it's unlikely that
anyone else will start using that name, causing problems with loop
detection in the Path: header.

Cheers,
-- 
\/ato - Ian Dickinson - NIC handle: ID17                   No-one is to molest
vato@csv.warwick.ac.uk  ...!mcsun!uknet!warwick!vato           the wombat when
/I=I/S=Dickinson/OU=CSV/O=Warwick/PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/            anyone is
@c=GB@o=University of Warwick@ou=Computing Services@cn=Ian Dickinson  watching.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ATUI=LONG-WINDED BULLSHIT.
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:19:43 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1dlodgINN6un@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
> 
>    This is all very nice.  But what my wife or sister or daughter
> or mother or cousin does with her own body is their own business.

When did I suggest it wasn't?

>    It the Sears Towers were built on a foundation as shaky as the
> one you built this ATUI crap on, the would be outhouses, which is
> where your crap belongs.

I disagree.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Susan Garvin on Forgery
Keywords: Chaney/Hall, lies, Nyikos/?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Nov 92 23:24:12 GMT

In <Bx1vsy.M7y.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:


>Nyikos, you'll just have to accept responsibility for your actions.

>You've shown that you're both incapable of understanding attributions
>and apologizing for mistakes.  You incorrectly (and maliciously, Overpeck?)
>accused Adrienne of forgery. 

This statement is not correct. As Frank O'Dwyer can confirm.

> You've joined Dennis in his false
>accusations about me.   I don't have the original article in
>the former case, but I'm willing to repost the idiocy that Dennis
>refers to as a forgery each time you repeat the accusation.

>Susan

>[The following articles are included in their entirety.  I suggest
>hitting "n" now if you're not Nyikos.]

You should have e-mailed them to me, and saved the world a lot of
extra computer use.

I'll look them over carefully tomorrow. Got to run now.

Peter Ny.



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: favorite joke of the week
Followup-To: alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:23:33 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

->How generous of you, Keith, but since no-one credible has ever accused me of
->"fabricating quotes", I don't need your "protection", thanks.

this is my favorite joke of the week.
From: clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: twisting words(about Thans for life)
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:11:03 -0600
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <nyikos.721421472@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Nov2.223133.8359@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
> 
>>>  When a woman
>>> is pregnant and that is ruining her life (no, this doesn't happen in *all*
>>> cases, but it does in some and those are the cases that are important to the
>>> pro-choice position) the pro-lifers would PREVENT her from getting "help"
>>> (ie an abortion) to put her life back on track?
> 
> There are other kinds of help, from crisis pregnancy centers, to help women
> carry to term if that is what they would prefer.  Just how "pro-choice"
> is this person at rice.edu?  Pro-choice-for-abortion?
> 
> 
>>twisting is twisting when it is not true.  I think life is very important. 
>>Even clinton said himself that he thinks abortion is a very bad thing and
>>should be avoided if possible.  I wonder why he said that.
> 
> Maybe he hates it the way Bush hates broccoli? :-)
> 
> All kidding aside, if that is the way he feels, why is he so gung-ho
> on FOCA, federal financing of abortions, federal funding of fetal 
> harvesting, etc.?


That is a very good question.  Why don't we check into that.  If you look in
the archives at wustl.edu, they give a listing of Clinton's speeches.  If you
don't believe he said what I said he said, check it out.
...Ken!
> 
> Peter Ny.
> 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Hold IT! TIME OUT!!!!
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 11:04:11 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
] In article <lefty-091192131607@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
] >In article <1992Nov8.022830.20646@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.uucp (Doug
] >Holtsinger) wrote:
] >> 
] >> If certain moderate pro-choicers didn't exist,
] >> what would Keegan do?  Play with himself all day?
] >
] >Doug, if you've failed to learn anything else from USENET, you should at
] >least have learned that not everybody shares your particular predilections.
] 
] Translation: "I know you are, but what am I?"
] 
] 								- Kevin


I'm sorry, this is to much like 
darcy and keegan playing KissyFace
in front of the CHILD.

PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!

We have standards!

With Trash Like this, I'm afraid I will find the 
headlines in the morning paper reading:

	Risa Found in Love Triangle with Najanaja and Kent Paul Dolen!


SOME THINGS ARE JUST UNTHINKABLE!!!!!

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: late term abortions (was "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:36:03 GMT

In article <markts.721341555@mcl> markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.) writes:
>In <1992Nov9.021627.26932@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> How many viable lives would have to be terminated without good cause
>>> before you'd permit preventitive legislation restricting late-term 
>>> abortions?
>
>>I've seen very few pro-choicers answer this question.
>
>i say 32,767. this way we can still compile terminated_viable_lives
>as an integer. 

Use an unsigned 16-bit, and we're up to 65,535. Use a real machine, where
an unsigned int is the same size as an unsigned long, and we're up to
4,294,967,295. I digress...

>but seriously, speaking of variables, what do you mean 
>by viable lives? abortions which end up producing a living
>baby? then it is alive and breathing, and should not be
>killed. 

"Viable" usually means "statistically viable". There is no way to know in
advance FOR SURE whether a given fetus is going to survive outside the womb, 
even at a full 9 months or more. But, there is a _statistical_ threshold of
"viability", which is roughly at 20-24 weeks (?). It's before the boundary 
between the second and third trimesters, at any rate...

								- Kevin
From: dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 8 Nov 92 02:02:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1dcbqaINNi6l@gap.caltech.edu> 
peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>   In short, Roe and Doe give the woman (1) a privacy interest that
>>   outweighs any rights which may be asserted on behalf of the fetus
>>   up to the point of viability, and (2) a broadly defined health
>>   interest which prevails over any interest asserted on behalf of
>>   the fetus throughout the term of pregnancy."

> Yup.  Roe v. Wade gave *doctors* a lot of authority in determining 
> wheter a late-term pregnancy could be aborted.

Exactly.  And they have the final authority to determine whether they
will perform a particular abortion, at any time during a pregnancy.

>--  Michal


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 07:09:05 GMT

<1992Nov8.172918.8572@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) :
>In article <1992Nov8.033225.13187@netcom.com> 
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>
>>>> No, my argument is "infants" can be killed when they inhabit the body of
>>>> an unwilling host and the only way to remove them is to kill them.  
>
>>> But a child can be removed from the womb without killing them. 
>
>> What's your opinion on abortion, then?
>
>I wasn't expressing a preference for removing a child from
>the womb during an abortion, I was correcting Storga's statement.  

My statement was not in error.

>By correcting his error, I wasn't supporting any part of his
>argument. 

Definately.  You started talking about children when we were discussing
abortion.

>I believe that parents should have a general obligation to care 
>for their children.  Bodily autonomy has nothing to do with it.
>I think this is the second time I've told you that.

I agree completely.

>> Since removing the fetus intact involves greater expense and
>> greater risk to the woman at the gain of only perhaps the slow death
>> of the fetus over a few minutes instead of intentionally quickly,
>> removing the fetus intact would be unfeasible and pointless.
>
>Removing the child intact does not always pose more of a risk
>to the mother.  

What child?

>                I recently posted an article which showed that
>killing, rather than removal, is often cheaper, faster, and
>less painful, with about the same risk after 16 weeks gestational
>age.  

No fetus has ever survived a premature birth of 17 weeks.

>Even if a person has the right to perform act X, where act X
>results in the death of person Y, it does not logically
>follow that anyone should have the right to kill person Y.

Your point?

>If I have the right to leave a severely wounded accident 
>victim alongside the road to die, it does not follow that
>I should have the right to kill them.  

I fail to see how that relates to the original topic.  Can you tie them
together somehow?

>>> ... it's the involuntary servitude to a person's sex drive 
>>> which often precedes abortion and pregnancy.  
>
>> Huh?  Are you saying that sex is bad, and that pregnancy is its
>> punishment?
>
>No, I was making fun of Storga.  

Oh, well in that case.

Heh, heh.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 22:04:07 GMT


In article <1das4qINN5d6@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:

>Also - most people find abortion to be repugnant (yet support the right to
>choose, which I think is correct).  I'd like to ask: why is that?  
 
I'm not as sure as I used to be that I find abortion repugnant, but 
I definitely would like to see an end to the large need for abortion.
Rather than abortion repulsing me, I'd say it makes me sad.
 
In the case of unwanted pregnancy, there is ultimately only two
choices.  We can either allow the woman to decide for herself,
thereby possibly allowing abortion, or we can force the woman
to remain pregnant.  While I see the choice of abortion as 
sad, I see forcing the woman to continue a pregnancy against
her will repulsive.  
 
>Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
 
Dan King
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47285 alt.abortion.inequity:4967 soc.women:19133 soc.men:18920
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 06:48:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.181747.4351@midway.uchicago.edu> shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:
>
>Read the original post again.  Americans tend to not support abortions after
>the first trimester.  The proposals of which you speak would have banned
>abortions in the first trimester.  When faced with a choice of abortion
>on demand or no abortion at all, Americans choose the former.  The real
>battle will continue to be fought in the middle, not at the extremes.

You do not have your facts in order.  The Maryland measure codified Roe v.
Wade. It says nothing about first trimester abortions being a special
category.  It had *nothing* to do with banning abortions since it was a
preemptive strike in case Roe gets reversed by the Supreme Court.  Had it
been voted down, they could have chosen any range of alternatives available
in the current caselaw.  They chose the rule of Roe.  Maryland, by the way,
is heavily Catholic last I heard.

Arizona was a RTL measure that would have banned abortions except in the
classic exceptions of rape, incest, life of mother.  It lost, too.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The answer!!!
Date: 5 Nov 1992 16:11:12 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov5.220155.26171@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.133158.8441@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu 
>writes:

>Religious stuff, which the Most Reverend Father Doug Holtsinger will notice
>I did not bring up, neither did I bring it into this newsfroup.


He will?  What makes you think he *will* notice it, Galen?

He's never noticed anything else that's hit him up 'long side the head
before....

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: The answer!!!
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:01:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.133158.8441@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu 
writes:

Religious stuff, which the Most Reverend Father Doug Holtsinger will notice
I did not bring up, neither did I bring it into this newsfroup.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 17:57:49 GMT

In article <1dcctgINN5kg@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.204934.29875@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>>|>I have a better solution here to.  Why doesn't the clinic ask them 
>>|>when they show up, "Have you made a thoughtful and well informed 
>>|>decision?" 
>
>>Unfortunately everyone is not honest and these minor inconvience should be
>>no problem to those that want abortions.
>
>So, let's make these dishonest people have children!!!
>
>>If you had not deleted some of the text that I was refering to it would have
>>made sense.I was talking about 2 underage females I knew that got abortions and
>>were not properley counseled about abortion.
>
>So, let's make these underage females have children!!!!
>
>>Yes I really do believe there are some people out there that don't know
>>where babies come from, but this is a small minority and I was only
>>reply to the person that replied to one of my articles.
>
>So, let's make these ignorant people have children!!!!
>
>>Again you edited out the relevant discussion earlier. We were talking about
>>a woman who intentionaly got pregnant and then later decided she wanted
>>an abortion.
>
>So, since she committed the sin of *changing her mind*, let's force her to
>have children!!!!
>
>>I have talked to women. I think you should find out more before making
>>accusations. Most of my feelings about stricter abortion laws are based
>>on my talks with these 2 young women. Unfortunately not all woman give
>>the issue as much thought as the women you are talking about. So we have
>>to make sure they know what they are doing.
>
>
>Because, if they *don't* meet your standards on knowing what they are doing,
>it is *much*, *much* smarter to force them to have CHILDRE!!!!!

A one-word refutation of Adrienne's points: adoption.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: anti-choice claims
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 02:09:36 GMT

 ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
->>here's an anti-choice stance if i ever saw one:

->Keegan, go back to picking on Darcy.  

oh i'd much rather post issue-oriented abortion
material ray just like this material which you deleted.

--------begin ray's deletions

   "My preferences as to when to restrict abortions
   don't allow women who prefer to wait until the third
   trimester to get abortions, no.  This doesn't
   particularly upset me.  I want restrictions to start
   at the *earliest* 22 weeks (more likely 24), and by
   that time she should have known she was pregnant
   long enough to have had an abortion if she wanted
   one."
      <1992May25.204212.8159@midway.uchicago.edu>

i laughed when i looked up this old post. she posted it
with her Pro-Choice .sig!

apparently, the justification for this stance is 
that it won't impact many (women). i imagine the 
same argument could be used for enslaving any minority.

and, if legislating against abortion isn't enough, 
take a peek at this punitive and vindictive
statement to punish the women who have the abortions
e.e. wants to ban.

   "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>

she posted this one with her .sig too.

that's e.e.
--------end ray's deletions

->If you can't have a life, at
->least pick on someone else who doesn't have a life.

is it picking on someone to raise abortion-related
issues in the newsgroup which exists to debate
abortion-related issues?

of the two posts, my original or your reply, which
contained abortion-related material, ray?


->-- 
->Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
->ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: anti-choice claims
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 17:57:35 GMT

keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
>where does it do that, ray? it looks to me like it
>refers to positions, not labels.

Clue:  I don't care what you think Ms. Bartley's position is.  I
can find out for myself from Ms. Bartley's posts what her opinion is.
If you disagree with her, say so and say why.  If you agree with her 
say so and say why.  If all you want to do is try and establish that 
Ms. Bartley is anti-choice, go somewhere else.  If you don't have an
opinion of your own, go somewhere else.  alt.flame seems to be far
better suited to your style of posting.

If you can't have a life, at least pick on someone else who doesn't
have a life.

>do you want to imprison the women who have "banned"
>abortions, ray?

Do you want a woman in labor to be able to have the doctor kill the 
fetus just before it emerges if labor becomes too painful?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.misc
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Clearly NOT a FORGERY
Followup-To: alt.flame
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 19:22:08 GMT


In article <1992Nov10.174712.27216@wolves.uucp>, news@wolves.uucp writes:
|Casting aspersions on NCSU because you are technically out-of-date is
|hardly conducive to you [sic] (already lacking) net.reputation.

"G. Wolfe Woodbury" needs a new clue.  Drieux has a healthy,
robust, & well-established net.reputation.  The state of the
net's uucp maps has no bearing on drieux's vast fame.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"A moment's thought would have shown him, but a moment is a long 
time and thought is a painful process." -- A E Housman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion