HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hack logic? (was Re: Dirigible Boy Logic (was Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all thing) )apparently
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:00:44 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

Careful, Steve....
The way you casually use words like "Bible" and "evangelist" in phrases 
of negative intent may confuse some people as to which side of the 
debate you are on.

And you certainly don't need to confuse them any further.....

-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Humphrey should apologize to Mr. Chaney
Date: 22 Aug 92 02:28:02 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Aug21.170936.17092@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) :
>In article <av_nsdc.gordons@netcom.com> 
>gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>> [.. Re: Humphrey's refusal to apologize to Chaney ...]
>
>> Sorry to repost the whole thing, but I thought it important to leave
>> everything in context.  While I don't condone Patrick's choice of
>> words, and under normal conditions I would expect to see an apology
>> from him, I don't expect him to apologize.  
>
>Well of course you don't expect him to apologize, you'd probably take 
>Humphrey's side no matter what he said.  

Nope, Patrick and I have disagreed before.

>> Mr Chaney, Mr Kellmeyer,
>> and Mr Holtsinger have all gone on record here comparing pro-choicers
>> to Nazis.  
>
>I have never compared pro-choicers to Nazis.  You are making things up
>in order to help Humphrey weasel out of apologizing.  

I will need to ask for help from others on the net.  I believe you have
posted articles comparing the pro-choice position in America with the 
alleged "pro-choice" position in Nazi Germany.  The implication being that
you believe pro-choicers are genocidal racial supremicists.

>> To me that is much worse than Patrick's single racial
>> comment 
>
>Pure garbage.  We ain't playing a "tit for tat" game here.  Humphrey
>should apologize to Mr. Chaney.  

And I would agree completely as I find any unprovoked racial slur to be
reprehensible.

>> (which may indeed be a fact - Mr Chaney is black, and he may
>> indeed have a fat ass).  
>
>You don't seem to recognize the racist overtones of that remark.

No, there aren't any racial overtones *to* that remark of mine.  However,
in case you couldn't comprehend the words I wrote orginally, I did find
Patrick's original statement to be a racial slur.

>Your comment is just as offensive as Humphrey's. 

Oh, I don't doubt that you find it offensive.  You find most of my
comments offensive.

>> When Mr Chaney, Mr Kellmeyer, and Mr Holtsinger have apologized for their
>> racial slander of pro-choicers then I would expect to see Patrick 
>> make amends.
>
>I have never posted racial slanders, and neither has Mr. Kellmeyer or 
>Mr. Chaney.

False.

>Your post is a pathetic attempt to focus attention away from Humphrey's 
>highly offensive remarks.  You may want to forget them, but I won't. 

Good.  Now why don't you apologize for your slander of pro-choicers.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
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.
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Bush, Clinton, and the Abortion Issue
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:05:43 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Aug19.042801.14790@cco.caltech.edu> 
tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:

> [Nice try on the newsgroups line, Doug.  Do you usually like sending 
> responses away from the core constituency?)

No, you're just acting paranoid.

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

>> Clinton has had to change his abortion stance to place it in line with 
>> the Democratic platform of unrestricted abortion-on-demand.  

> Sorry.  The Democratic platform is NOT unrestricted abortion-on-demand, as
> has been pointed out to you an almost uncountable number of times by now,
> Mr. Holtsinger.  The platform supports the FOCA, which is not unrestricted
> abortion-on-demand per se; and the reality of the current situation is 
> *definitely* not unrestricted abortion on demand.

But I've seen no proof that the FOCA is not unrestricted abortion-on-
demand.  The FOCA is intended to codify Roe v. Wade into law, and 
since Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion on demand, so is the
FOCA.  I've presented proof that Roe is abortion on demand, and
you and the rest of your pro-abortion buddies have posted nothing 
but blatant assertions. 

>> Clinton has stated that he would not veto Medicaid funding of abortions
>> for poor women.  

> A very pro-choice attitude.

It is a minority-held position, and an extremist one at that.  
Many people do not want to be forced to pay for somebody else's
abortion.

>> The very
>> broad definition of "health" given by the Court includes emotional 
>> and psychological health.  A pregnant woman carrying a viable fetus
>> need only find a physician who's willing to perform the abortion for 
>> her "mental health".  

> And if she's in the third trimester, that's three doctors total.  
> Nationwide.

This doesn't refute what I said.  Try again.

And where's the proof for this "three doctors" claim? 

>> The Court may not overturn Roe completely.  

> "May".  Interesting that when your past appeals to "morality" haven't worked,
> you're now campaigning for Bush by saying "well, maybe he wouldn't do THAT
> much".  Aren't you upset that he *might* betray your basic principles?  And 
> if not, doesn't that make you just as hypocritical as he is?

No, I'm saying that Bush may appoint a Justice who could vote 
to uphold Roe, as three other Reagan/Bush appointees have done. 
I'm illustrating the realities of the situation, which is something 
you can't seem to grasp. 


Doug Holtsinger

"Take responsibility for your children, or we will force you to do it."
 -- Bill Clinton, speaking at the Democratic National Convention
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 02:09:17 GMT

mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

>You say it's ok to pick the arbitrary point of birth to abort.

Just a clue, Brian, but a lot of women here get awfully annoyed
when people persist in calling birth "an arbitrary point".

>Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca

                     -rocker
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Questions for Dear, Old Doug.
Date: 16 Aug 92 14:38:10 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Aug15.183112.7445@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes the usual:

>In the vast majority of abortions, the fetus is either scraped
>out of the womb or vacuumed out, thus killing the fetus in the 
>process.  

Absolutely true.  No euphemism needed: Abortion terminates the life of
the /z/e/f/?  I'm not turning away or in denial.  People die for
`good' and `bad' reasons everyday; what's your point?

>This nonsense about the woman not contributing to the
>"well being of the fetus" is a euphemism which helps people
>to avoid confronting the fact that abortion kills a human being. 

Wrong.  I have already demonstrated that I feel no need to hide from
the reality that abortion terminates the life, such as it is, of a
/z/e/f/.  

Your statements generate some questions; please answer them at your
convenience.  

(1) Do you deny that the fetus is using the mother's bodily tissues,
fluids, and organs?

(2) Are you denying that this presents significant health risks for
the mother?

(3) Can you name a situation in which you would compel a man to use
his bodily tissues, fluids, or organs in a similar manner?

(4) Imagine a person is driving while intoxicated, has an accident,
and injures someone.  The injured party needs a new kidney to survive
as a result of their injuries.  Do you want to compel the drunk driver
to donate that kidney?

SJM
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:44:54 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
-> > [...]
-> >}dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> >}-> Only about 30% of Americans support
-> >}-> unrestricted abortion on demand, which has been
-> >}-> defined by Keegan et. al. as the only position
-> >}-> which is truly "choice".
-> >
-> >} [...]
-> >
-> >As one of those "et. al"'s I'd like to respond that
-> >I doubt any of us can be quoted as saying that it
-> >is the one true position.
-> 
-> Word games. 

and you do them so badly too. why do you keep trying
[...]

-> Logically speaking, saying that no-one who would
-> allow any restrictions on abortion is "pro-choice"
-> is STRICTLY EQUIVALENT to saying that the only
-> people who are "pro-choice" are those who support an
-> UNrestricted abortion right.  

i can see that your logic skills are on a par with your
system administration skills, your legal credentials,
and your understanding of child support.

do you truly still fail to understand the difference
between support for abortion and opposition to
legislation to restrict abortion? really, you must. i
don't think anyone could be around the net as long as
you have and not do so. which implies that you're
criticizing yourself when you begin your post claiming
that someone else is playing word games when that is,
in fact, exactly what you are doing.


-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: A crack in the iron curtain?
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 15:49:53 GMT

Keegan apparently wants to resume our flamewar over whether or not I'm
a pro-choicer....

In article <1992Aug16.134958.28706@crd.ge.com>
james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes to chaneyhall:

>-> But take Kaufman's ravings away, whether or not you
>-> take away yours -- please!  I'm embarrassed that
>-> he's on my side.

>i don't believe he is on your side, ms. bartley.

I'd love to disown him, Keegan.  You too, frankly.  Unfortunately, I
disagree with you and him over less than 100 out of 1,600,000 cases a
year.  I think that constitutes "on my side."

>i believe mr. kaufman opposes legislation to restrict
>abortion.  you support such legislation.

Why don't you post the rest of the facts, Keegan?

I support legislation to restrict third-trimester abortions to cases
where the mother's life or health is in danger and very major fetal
deformities.

>i don't believe mr. kaufman has ever posted that he
>would punish women who have abortions. you have.

I would enforce said laws with penalties to parties that broke them.

>i don't believe that mr. kaufman has ever suggested
>that there should be fewer abortion rights for stupid
>woman than for other women. you have.

I don't recall saying this.

I'd ask you to post the quote, which I'm sure you've saved.

However....  Since I'm sure you're going to continue posting articles
like this, and I can't resist defending myself if I see them, and I
have *NO* intention of being caught in a permanent flamewar with you,
I'm creating a KILLfile just for you -- so I won't see it, anyway.

So, people, if Keegan attacks me and I don't respond, it's not because
he's right and I don't have a defense; it's because I didn't see the
attack in the first place.

--
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Polls show Republicans favor abortion rights
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:45:46 GMT

In article <4eY87cO00Uh745g4N6@andrew.cmu.edu>, Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
# chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
# # dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# # >bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
# # >> The polls show that the majority of Republicans favor choice.  
# # 
# # - Epitaph for John Campbell, pro-abort Republican US Senatorial
# # Candidate in California, who got a new asshole burned for him by
# # pro-life Republican candidate Bruce Herschensohn, in the June primary. 
#  
# #Idiot.  If Herschensohn had lost by the margin he won by, he would
# #have demanded and got a recount.  I seem to recall the margin being
# #something like 3000 votes.
#
# Campbell lost this primary by a margin large enough to make a recount
# silly.  The lose however was due to Sonny Bono's presense  in the race. 
# Bono and Campbell are both moderate Republicans.  Without Bono, Campbell
# probably would the Republican nominee.  Barbara Boxer is a lucky woman.

The margin was about 1/2 of 1% of the votes cast, close enough that
the election wasn't decided until *all* of the absentee ballots were
cast.

Besides...

I don't think you were paying close attention to that Senate race.
Sonny Bono, is not a moderate by any stretch.  He is a mainstream
conservative republican -- basically, he's about as socially
conservative as Republicans get without being Christian Right, and
he's about as fiscally conservative as Republicans get without being
a mutant Austrian school supply-sider geek like Jack Kemp.  He's
anti-abortion.  He's pro-censorship.  He's a poor environmentalist.
He's a solid mainstream Republican type, and the reason he lost was
because Republicans didn't take him as a serious candidate for the
Senate.  He should have run for Congress.

Campbell lost because he faired poorly in Los Angeles where nobody
knew who he was and *everybody* knew Herschensohn, and Herschensohn
could mobilize the screwhead right to come out in droves, whereas
Campbell was less than inspiring to Republican moderates.

Campbell's position on abortion did not, in any way, contribute to his
lossage in California's Republican Senate primary.  California
Republicans, even more than those in other states, prefer pro-choice
candidates.  Pete Wilson and John Seymour being the most visible
examples.

(For the reading impaired: while all of the above is stated as fact,
it is actually only opinion -- but it's widely held opinion.  And
*that's* a fact.  No, I am not going to wade through my stacks of old
newspapers to dig up precise references.)


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

Tired of `short, shameful confessions?'  Too old for `one line bios?'
`Rictus Hep' just too bizarre?  Try *NEW* ----> `I resolve...'  It's
the latest craze!  Tastes great!  Low in saturated fat!  And!!  It
doesn't leave you drowsy like those other brands!  New `I resolve...'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:52:52 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Aug20.202812.12068@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu writes:

> I was wondering if there would be any interest in a moderated abortion
> newsgroup.  There are so many personal attacks and insults thrown around
> on talk.abortion that I thought it might be appropriate to have a newsgroup 
> dedicated to calm and serious discussions of the issues.  
> 
> The name would be something like "talk.abortion.moderated", and it would
> serve alongside talk.abortion as an alternate newsgroup.  No personal
> attacks, insults, or flames would be permitted on the newsgroup.  Everything
> else would be accepted unconditionally.  People who had their articles
> rejected could always post them to talk.abortion. 
> 
> The big problem, of course, would be the selection of the moderator(s).

[potential moderators listed]

> What do people think of the idea?

  Well, its not too bad.  But since this is an emotional issue, and many of
us use emotional arguments (like me), the trick is in seperating what is purely
emotion from what is flame.  It could be done, I think--there's a moderated
atheism group which I've dropped in occasionally (know thy "enemy" :-)) to
read and there are debates between religious and non-religious, but I have seen
none that got nasty like they do here.
 
  Two problems.  1) moderated groups tend to be jerky in output.  Many of us
are used to seeing an answer in a day, sometimes within the hour, of our post.
This will likely no longer be the case.  2) the massive BW of talk.abortion
would place a major strain on the moderator.  I simply could not do it; I spend
far too much of my time responding as it is.  I will have to cut back soon.

  In short, while I like the idea, I think it would be impractical for most
of us.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:53:51 GMT

In <1992Aug12.175413.9267@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>In article <1992Aug12.163353.6443@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> In article <l8hms5INN4n9@girtab.usc.edu> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
>> 
>> >	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
>> > ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
>> > tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
>> > dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
>> > plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
>> > platforms.
>> 
>> Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports exceptions for rape
>> and incest, and for the life of the mother.   

>And for members of his own family.

>Dean Kaflowitz

This confuses forgiveness with support.  On top of which, inasmuch as women
were never legally penalized for abortions (all punishments fell on the
abortionists) there is not much else to be said.  Your daughter wants an
abortion, you cannot stop her against her will.  Do you go on loving her,
or not?  Bush would go on, while continuing to maintain that what she did
was wrong.

Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 06:17:21 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush (was Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
	<l8rtgnINNj90@girtab.usc.edu>

Though I generally do not waste my time reading post by Mr. Chaney,
through someone else's post I noticed this statement.

In article <1992Aug16.000244.16184@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen
 A Chaney) writes:
>Check out Al Gore's voting record. Up until a few years ago, he voted
>pro-life over 80% of the time. 
>Now, he's "pro-choice" all the way. 
>How can you trust him? 
 
Unlike some unreasonble lines of logic, this one is not peculiar to Mr.
Chaney.  Dare I say the obvious?  Politics is not about trust.  Politics
is about policy.

Michael Loomis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Bush, Clinton, and the Abortion Issue
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 03:04:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.224117.35556@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

>>> And where's the proof for this "three doctors" claim?

>> Perhaps you missed the post saying it was on 60 Minutes recently.
>> Write them for a transcript.

> Actually, you didn't miss it - in fact you pointed it out to me.  In
> article <1992Aug18.134606.16685@ncsu.edu> you wrote:

Someone please give me the date of the 60 minutes episode, and I will 
write to them for a transcript.  

In the meantime, I would like to ask the specific source for this claim,
since 60 minutes had to get it from somewhere.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Who was "Dennis Hall"?
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:40:07 GMT

In article <1684554D.HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Patrick Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.003415.17098@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
 
>>                Shhh, Scott.
>>                We know you're posting as Pat Harumphrey because
>>                you both lie the same way.
 
>Come on, Steve.  Let's see just how much of a boy you are.  March your
>fat black ass down here and tell me I'm a liar, to my face.  (I hope
     ^^^^^
Excuse me, Patrick.  I don't see that Steve's skin color is of any relevance.  
I find the phraseology here repugnant.

Excuse me, Steve.  What is my name doing in this thread?  I would never 
use the phrase that Patrick just used.  Please remove my name.  Thanks.

[Note I am not endorsing or condemning anyone here.  I am stating my 
feelings about this particular thread.]


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: politics
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:20:04 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  <1992Aug19.163821.17023@ncsu.edu>  dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <onv3s2k@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>
> > I am pleased to see the Democrats taking such a strong
> > pro-choice stand, in an election where their opponents have
> > adopted a plank that includes NO EXCEPTIONS for victims of rape
> > and incest.  The Republicans are extremists.
>
> And the Democrats aren't extremists on abortion?  The Democratic
> platform plank on abortion indicates that they support ...
> unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout the term of pregnancy.

This sounds like another Holtsinger lie.  Can you document this?

(Note that both Roe v. Wade and the Freedom of Choice Act allow for
restrictions on abortion after viability, and the current situation
is a de facto ban on third-trimester abortions for anything other
than serious medical considerations.)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion