HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:47:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.172801.7718@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1992Aug27.213923.7964@rigel.econ.uga.edu> 
#mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
#

## Therefore, EVERY state may enact legislation requiring a physician to
## attempt to preserve the life of a fetus that is 24 weeks' gestation or older.
#
#No, this is not correct either.  Legislation to require a physician to 
#employ the abortion technique which would provide the best opportunity
#for the fetus to be aborted alive was struck down by the Supreme
#Court in Colautti v. Franklin (1979).  

No, it is correct.  The Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1989
contains a section which restricts abortions of fetuses of 24 weeks
or greater gestational age.  It requires that three physicians
determine that the pregnant woman's life is in danger (and suicidal
tendencies in the pregnant woman cannot be considered.)  It
requires that a second physician be present to take "all reasonable
steps" to save the fetus.  Finally, it requires that the abortion
be performed "in a manner which provides the best opportnity for
the unborn child to survive."  A physician who violates this
law is guilty of a 1st degree felony.

Some sections of the PA ACA of 1989 are enjoined, but this 
section was not challenged in PP v. Casey and is currently
in effect.

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 22:24:13 GMT

<1992Aug25.184334.13929@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
>In article <ovuh25g@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:

>We cannot afford to define the begining of life as that point where the
>fetus reaches sapience, because that would leave the door open for
>the legal right to execute brain-damaged individuals.  Not a pretty
>picture.

This is a fallacy.  A fetus is not a person.  It has no legal rights.  A
person is a human being that has been born.  The entire premise behind
abortion is to *terminate* a pregnancy.  If a born human is brain damaged
then abortion laws do not apply.  You do not execute a born person who is
brain damaged.  They are not living inside the body of another person.

You are comparing Apples and IBMs.

Let's put it this way:  If the fetus in a woman was sentient/sapient AND
was the next Jesus, Ghandhi, Einstein, or Elvis it *wouldn't matter* to
me.  If the woman wanted it out -- it comes out.  Once it's born she can
give it up for adoption -- she doesn't have to kill it.


Gordon
-- 
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,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Observations
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 05:15:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.220014.23413@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.151337.26405@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep1.203518.20259@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:

[re: regulating abortion]
>>>If I cannot help reverse this fascist trend, I'll move to a country where 
>>>individual freedom is cherished.
>>
>>Feel free.  Just what country would this be, anyway? 
>
>Most northern European countries although I would have to read up on 
>current policies for those countries.

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

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

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Maury Povich and the brainwashing child abusers
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:33:16 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Sep3.160030.10916@mcs.gvsu.edu> orr@perlis.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:

>In article <1992Sep1.130250.2197@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>>
>>     I would just like to say that I also had the opportunity to 
>>watch that Maury Povich episode yesterday, and Susan Garvin's
>>interpretation was quite accurate indeed.  It was frustrating
>>to watch the pro-lifers on the panel spew their arguments without
>>being able to tell them what was the matter with them (their
>>arguments that is).  Brainwashing put aside, those children were
>>and will continue to be abused by their parents.  I'm not sure
>>if it's good parental practice to allow your 13 year-old daughter
>>to be arrested 42 times, and say "it's ok, she wanted to do it,
>>I didn't put her up to it."
>>
>The thing is is that these same thirteen year old's are supposedly 
>old enough to decide to have an abortion without parental consent.

    Not by the side her parents stand for, Wes.

>How can she be mature enough to decide to have an abortion at
>thirteen but not old enough to oppose it? 

   Of course she is old enough to oppose having an abortion if she
became pregnant. The idea that she would have no say is disgusting. She
is not, however, old enough to oppose OTHER WOMEN having abortions. And
neither are you.

 Furthermore, parental
>influence goes both ways on this issue.  If a minor cannot be 
>expected to protest something that she believes from her own
>heart I don't see the logic of saying that she is old enough to 
>condone it or act upon it.  It is almost implying that the 
>pro-choice movement is more honest than the pro-life movement.


     You got that right!

>hBoth sides use extremist tactics and make it difficult for adults
>let alone children decide for themselves.

     No Wes--the whole point of being pro-choice is to do exactly that.
Let me know when you understand, OK?

>Wes


MP
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:38:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.122014.9891@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

> What I find amazing is the failure to recognize, on the part
> of so-called "pro-life" people, that a state which can compell
> pregnancy to continue, a state which can intrude into such
> fundamental matters of a person's private life, can also take
> a very short step to compelling abortion.  

You have ignored the fact that the state's interest in prohibiting
abortion is fundamentally different from the state's interest
in mandating abortion.  In addition, your statement presumes
that abortion is a legitimate exercise of a person's right to
conduct their own personal affairs.  That presumption is  
questionable on its face, since an abortion kills a human  
being.  

Your slippery-slope argument is basically an attack on the
concept of a ``compelling state interest'', rather than 
a direct attack on abortion laws.  According to your reasoning, 
the state should not involve itself in regulating abortion, 
even to protect the woman's health, because the state may
ultimately attempt to rationalize mandatory abortion laws 
based upon some ``compelling state interest''.  

The state could not even require a physician to perform the abortion, 
or to require sterilized procedures, because these regulations
are based upon a ``compelling state interest'' in protecting 
the woman's health, and the concept of a ``compelling state 
interest'' may ultimately be used as a basis for rationalizing 
mandatory abortion laws.   
 

>Dean Kaflowitz


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Time Poll
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:22:36 GMT

In article <92238.231430ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>As published in the August 31, 1992 issue:
>
>Which position best represents your views about abortion:
>
>A woman should be able to get an
>abortion no matter what the reason             49%
>

Count me right here.

The reason is NONE of my business, none of YOUR business.
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:01:04 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

> Galen
>> Holtsinger

>}The constitution gives the people the right to commit murder?

>Doug, does the word "draft" mean anything to you (besides a breeze in a 
>room, that is)?

You mean the breeze in his head?

-- 
"A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:26:36 GMT
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) + /h: j, Susan.

In article <1992Aug31.181411.21227@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.175039.20507@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
> ...doctors are being hauled to prison by the cops...
> 
> ...get her own ass hauled off to jail...
> 
> ...This is one person who gets his entertainment by seeing...
> you bitch and gripe and squirm...

And so on.

Visions of the brighter America as seen by Dennisstephen Chahallney.

And he says his home life was not dysfunctional, yet look at what
it produced.

He's one sick little boy.  His mommy and daddy better get him some
serious psychiatric treatment before his visions of his inheritance
get the better of what passes for his patience.  I won't be
surprised if I see him on A Current Affair somewhere down the
road.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abstinence is the only answer
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:50:43 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
-> Holtsinger looks more like Rasmussen every day. 

that's certainly true.

-> Is there any support out there for a Holtsinger
-> boycott?

didn't you learn your lesson with the djr boycott? half
the people who, like lemmings, signed it, ended up
replying to djr's posts anyway and looking like
hypocrites for doing so. it increased the traffic you
say you were trying to reduce (as half the net debated
the boycott).





-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:41:55 GMT

In <1992Aug27.133118.18469@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

>In <nyikos.714854358@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu writes:

>> In <92238.230642ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes:
>> 
>> >In article <1992Aug25.035838.2340@ncsu.edu> Doug Holtsinger says:
>> >What is a rare sight is prolifers admonishing
>> >the homophobic misogynist prolife loon,
>> 
>> I haven't seen any so far.  Give some examples.
>> 
>> > but
>> >then you're all one big happy family, no
>> >disent, no disagreements, no individuality.
>> 
>> Do you classify "Jammer Jim" Miller as a pro-lifer?  Earlier today,
>> along the THIRD TRIMESTER thread, I sadly concluded that he and
>> "Killer Tiller" of Wichita aren't as far apart as I thought.  (They
>> are still very far apart, though.  And I sure hope what Jammer Jim
>> is morally opposed to is very different than what he's support legal
>> restrictions against.)

>  Well, I am pretty peculiar.  While I dislike being compared to this Tiller
>person, whose views I expect are light-years from mine, the truth of the 
>matter is I cannot condone forcing a birth on someone who is dead-set against
>it -- *except* when it is so late in the game that the chances of the child-to
>be are very good.  That doesn't mean I *condone* an abortion 
>at any time -- just
>that I cannot forbid it (or support forbidding it) without coming into con-
>flict with some other values I hold dear.

Jim, I apologized to you in private even before I saw this, but let me
go public now.  When I made my original comment, my mind was exclusively
on the temporal (= pertaining to time) dimension of how late you would
allow abortions.  But in the moral dimension there is a gulf between you
and Tiller which I cannot begin to fathom.  My apologies to you and anyone
I might have misled by my remark.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:03:36 GMT

In <17s3nmINN73o@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715040868@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <17glukINN3jn@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>Who said anything about holding them to a higher standard?  I for one
>>just want the information available to them.  And in case of abortion,
>>which has so many complications, they should be provided without asking
>>JUST AS THEY ARE FOR ANY OTHER MEDICAL TREATMENT.

>Excuse me, please, but where is this information 'hidden'?  The information
>*is* available to them now, today, in libraries,

Except when the books are "Lost" the way _Aborted Women, Silent No More_
has been "Lost" from our university library.  This book has more info on
the pro-life side about abortion complications than all the other books
I have seen put together.

> from their doctors, from
>many clinics where abortions are or are not performed. 

If that's true, why do NOW, NARAL, PP, etc. fight like the dickens against
every clause in every informed consent bill, including clauses requiring the
detailing of abortion complications?

> The only people 
>who can't give this information freely are those clinics limited by Title X
>funding, and they can't give the whole story on abortion because of the
>whaycky president we currently have. 

And they don't want to give the whole story.  They want to leave out the
part about abortion-related complications, and create the impression that
abortion is a safe, risk-free procedure (heaven forbid they use the word
"operation"). 

> The standard of medical care for women
>who receive abortions is the same as the standard of medical care for women
>who receive delivery attendance, because (1) the only people who can perform
>abortions in this country (legally) *are* doctors who passed the SAME 
>standards of examination as other doctors. 

Most other doctors aren't even schooled in how to perform abortions.
Glad to see you admit that abortionists aren't schooled in them either.

By the way, it wasn't until a bizarre 1975 Connecticut v. Menillo ruling
that states were explicitly given the right to require that first trimester
abortions be performed by doctors.  Any idea how many states took 
advantage of this right which the anonymous writer of that decision
let them know was supposedly there all along?

> Plus of course (2) the fact that
>lots of doctors who perform abortions *also* perform deliveries.

"Lots"?  Percentages, please.  

>  They are
>obstetricians, after all.  

Only the ones who perform deliveries.

>This is what is known, Peter, as a strawman argument.

If it weren't for pro-lifers, the landscape would be thickly dotted with
pro-choice strawmen that lots of people mistake for real arguments.
It's bad enough as it is, with 90% of the media people pro-choice.

Peter Ny.
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: More Bigots! (was Re: Mark Russell (was: Re: Another good reason...)
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:02:49 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

>> "First you get down on your knees
>>  Fiddle with your rosaries
>>  Bow your head with great respect, and
>>  Genuflect!  Genuflect!  Genuflect!"
>> -Tom Lehrer "Vatican Rag"

Why, it's one of my favorite songs!

	Do whatever steps you want if
	You have cleared them with the Pontiff,
	Everybody say his own
	Kyrie eleison.
	Doin' the Vatican Rag!

> The last time someone said something this ugly about Jews, it was
> called Anti Semitism.

This song has been sung at Catholic retreats with great comic effect!
Let it not be said that all Catholics lack a sense of humor!

	Get in line in that processional,
	Step into that small confessional,
	There the guy who's got religion'll
	Tell you if your sin's original.

	If it is, trying playing it safer,
	Drink the wine and chew the wafer,
	Two, four, six, eight,
	Time to transubstantiate!

> But if it's said about Catholics, it's called the American way.

Lighten up, Steve.  You're beginning to sound like Conrad 'cinder'
Vincent.

Did you hear the one about the priest, the rabbi and the pastor?
They were playing golf...

	So get back down on your knees
	Fiddle with your rosaries
	Bow your head with great respect, and
	Genuflect!  Genuflect!  Genuflect!"

	Make a cross on your abdomen,
	When in Rome, do like the Romans,
	Ave Maria!
	(Gee, it's good to see ya!)
	Gettin' dramatic
	and sort of ecstatic
	and doin' the Vatican Rag!

-- 
Chris Lyman                    /  Due to circumstances beyond your
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  control, you are master of your
#include <std.disclaimers.h>   /  fate and captain of your soul.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: All discrimination is not equal -- or wrong
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 07:48:09 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<AWERLING.92Aug31165912@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
><1992Aug30.174525.8155@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) :
>>   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, but your use of the words in CAPS
>("no" and "nobody") lead me to instantly want to point out that there
>are no absolutes...there are hypothetical reasons why someone would
>"deserve" to be called just about anything.

You are now aware of why Doug has such a "sterling" reputation in this
group.  Patrick didn't call Chaney a "fat black ass".  He told him to get
his "fat black ass" over to Houston if he wanted to see him.

See how easy Doug changes the meaning of peoples statements.  Must be a
Republicrat.


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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,rec.music.misc
From: death@buhub.bradley.edu (Dustin Slater)
Subject: Re: "Drain You" by Nirvana
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 01:56:50 GMT

um, guys? why don't you just get them through ftp at cs.uwp.edu?
--
death@buhub.bradley.edu                              death@camelot.bradley.edu

     If you do not understand my silence, you will not understand my words.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.discrimination
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: All discrimination is not equal -- or wrong
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:42:03 GMT

In article <AWERLING.92Aug31165912@dante.nmsu.edu> 
awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:

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

>>   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".  

> I missed this entire conversation, but your use of the words in CAPS
> ("no" and "nobody") lead me to instantly want to point out that there
> are no absolutes...there are hypothetical reasons why someone would
> "deserve" to be called just about anything.

Can you name some?  I can't think of any situations where a person
could "deserve" to be called a name with such clear racist overtones.  

My point is that once we start rationalizing these kinds of insults,
any African-American can be a target for racist insults as long as 
the attacker's reasons are "good enough".  Here on talk.abortion, it 
seems that some people have fallen over each other to defend Humphrey's 
use of the term "fat black ass".  And Humphrey has made it clear that 
he won't even apologize to Mr. Chaney.  I think that stinks.  

> The usefulness of this comment?  I don't know.  I am very wary of any
> kind of absolutism...everything is case-by-case.  I imagine it would
> be more helpful if you were to show how this person's use of what is
> of course a pretty nasty thing to say to someone was uncalled for,
> rather than to say that the term is universally unjustifiable.

Here's the post which started it all:

------ begin included article ----
From: HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Get it *right*, Dennis.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who was "Dennis Hall"?
Date: 16 Aug 1992 05:22:28 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Aug16.003415.17098@csus.edu>
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
 
>
>In article <Bsy4qz.9vE@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>
>                Shhh, Scott.
>                We know you're posting as Pat Harumphrey because
>                you both lie the same way.
 
What a hoot.  If that was the case, the finger would be pointing straight
at you -- you're far and away the best known liar in *this* newsgroup,
even more so than Rasmussen himself.
 
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
you don't mind doing it in the presence of a few witnesses, and I hope
you like being humiliated.  On second thought, why should *I* care what
you think?  What you get, you won't expect.)
 
--PLH, thankful he's not a parent to such a waste of DNA as one Steve Chaney
 


----end included article----


Newsgroups: talk.abortion