HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Labels (was Proposed definitions for FAQ )
Date: 28 Dec 92 16:09:04 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher

Interesting - I didn't see the original article of
Proposed Definitions; I came up with this the other
day while reading another "pro-choice" vs "pro-abortion"
labelling thread.  Try this on for size.  


Time after time the issue of what to call a 
protagonist from whatever side of the abortion
debate becomes a focal point of a thread.  What
follows is a vague attempt at an FAQ on the
positions...

First off, the basic scale does not really have
"pro-choice" at one end and "pro-life" at the other.

It more falls out like this:

|------------------------------------------------|
^Choice                                     Force^

First - the Force end can actually be split into
two - with Choice between them.  This is an example
of the old idea that politics are more circular
than linear - if you follow an idea far enough, you
wind up back to the other side.  So, we have:

|--------------------------|---------------------------|
^                          ^                           ^
Forced Birth             Choice                Forced Abortion


The "center" position is occupied by those who believe
that whether or not to have an abortion is none of their
business unless it is for THEM.  They won't necessarily
even tell someone what they personally would do - they just
want to be sure that the woman in question has all possible
options available.

On the left (by my scale above), are those who personally
prefer to have the fetus carried to term; who will try
to convince the woman to carry to term; who believe that
past a certain point abortions should be restricted; and
so on down to the point where you get those who want to
make all abortions illegal.

On the right are those who personally would have an
abortion; who will try to convince the woman to have an
abortion; and so on down to people who think that all
BIRTHS should be illegal.  (I'll admit that there are
days when I've read of how humans treat the rest of the
world, including other humans, that I lean towards that
end of the scale...)  

Diana
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Mendacity of Susan Garvin, Part 2 [Was: Meet Pete...]
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: 29 Dec 92 03:10:11 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Keywords: right-to-lie


PHoney seems to think that we all save his every post.  Maybe he
thinks of them as lectures, and he thinks that we're taking notes.
(This is not uncommon among grad students with few social skills 
- they're trained to lecture, but no one teaches them to hold
conversations.  They never learn.  You can usually spot them as
faculty, since they're the ones with the office located in an
inconvenient location, talking to themselves as they eat their
sack lunches.)

I have no idea what he said about the woman who was fired from
the clinic in his first post about Dr. Tiller.  I remember that
he claimed that she was pro-choice (of course, PHoney thinks
that Rev. Holtsinger is pro-choice), and a former employee.
I don't recall that he said she'd been fired.  Maybe he did,
but I don't remember it.  (It's time for DODie to announce that
I do, too, remember it.)  It doesn't really matter - as you
pointed out, the fact that she was fired reduces her credibility.
The fact that she refers to fetuses as babies in her testimony
makes me doubt that she's still pro-choice.  

I did notice that Petey Honey did not comment on the patient's
words about Dr. Tiller.  He's in a tight spot.  If he claims
that she doesn't know what she's talking about, he can't post
any more rants about NancyJo Mann.  If he addresses the problem
that her fetus had (a heart that didn't develop), he's stuck
admitting that he would force the woman to go through the
ordeal she described with the end result of a dead baby.  No,
he'll change the subject (he picked that up fast), and start
rambling about anencephalic infants.

I really should try Dan's game.  Some of today's stuff from
Nyikos ought to qualify for a few points.

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: It was here just a minute ago...
	<1992Dec21.212858.28762@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
	<1992Dec22.051351.4921@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
	<1992Dec22.203138.23098@netcom.com> <1992Dec22.212341.496@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:14:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.212341.496@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
   >noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes: 

   >> What are laws if not an attempt to force majority morals on the minority?

   > Self interest.  [...]  neither you nor I will be harmed by an abortion.

   This is why pro-choicers must condone infanticide.

They do?  Funny -- my wife and I don't, and we're pro-choice.  I guess that
means we don't exist by your "logic" -- so don't you feel real proud of
yourself for trying to prove that someone who doesn't even exist is the
"epitome of evil"?  :-)

(It's *got* to be something in the water up there in Wake County.)

--PLH, and I thought being down the street from the EPA Crystal Chemical
site was bad...
--

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53291 can.politics:11076
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,can.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 29 Dec 92 05:53:22 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Dec26.192858.5927@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec24.180123.18424@informix.com> 
>proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>
>> This argument ("I am against abortion because had my parents chosen it,
>> I wouldn't be alive at all") would seem to apply equally well to
>> contraception. 
>
>Using your reasoning, the argument would apply equally well
>to infanticide.  And to killing persons in a coma.  And to
>killing persons while they are asleep. 

I am not sure I understand you point.

Just to clarify mine:

I think this argument ("I am against abortion because had my parents
chosen it, I wouldn't be alive") is not convincing. After all, the
parallel argument against contraception is just as good, but no-one
in their right mind is against contraception.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Fictional Gordon-Suzanne Dialogue on Trumped-up Case 3
Summary: It's been *done* already, PHoney.
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:54:56 GMT


[PHoney's little fantasy about an encounter between Gordon and Suzanne
deleted, to spare you the expense of all those Tums -- PLH]

Hate to tell you, but it's already been done in this newsgroup -- some
little boy named Steve Chaney tried it using me as his subject.  I
appreciate your trying to provide a little (or, in this case, a lot) of
humor into the discussion, but trust me -- we've already seen it happen
before.  (I hope you're not planning on emulating Airplane Boy, though.  The
admins here are wise to that trick, by now.)

--PLH, of this even Heisenberg would be certain
--
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: MEET GEORGE TILLER, LATE-TERM ABORTIONIST Part Two
Keywords: abortion, digoxin, laminaria
Date: 23 Dec 92 01:01:30 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <nyikos.724627328@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

[lots of PHoney's bullshit deleted]
#This
#information is missing from the brochure, and I am relying for it on
#_Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments_, by Randy Alcorn, Multnomah
#Press, 1992.  Information current as of May 1991, courtesy of Ann Tilson
#writing in _Kansans for Life_.

Really - why bother with original sources when you can use
pro-lie propaganda instead?  

Dr. Tiller's office has a listed phone number.  It is not necessary
for anyone to believe PHoney on this subject, anyone can call the
office and request the information.

#  As is customary with abortionists, payment terms are none too lenient.

That should be "As is customary with physicians,..."  Nyikos
hasn't visited a private physician's office in quite some
time if he thinks any of the payment terms are peculiar to
doctors who perform abortions.


[more text deleted, including quotes from a former employee
of Dr. Tiller's.  Former employees aren't always the best
witnesses - sometimes they have other agendas.]


I wasn't surprised that Nyikos disapproved of preserving patient's
confidentiality.  I knew from his support of the ARC that he
thinks that other people's medical treatment is public information,
regardless of the wishes of those people.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: 29 Dec 92 02:44:28 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec28.152539.11714@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
#In article <1992Dec24.172719.3996@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#> In article <1992Dec24.133627.29765@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
#> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
#> >nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#> >> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
#> >> >> = (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#> >> >>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
#> >> Right. You wouldn't want to be caught calling abortionists fascists.  The
#> >> pro-abortionist-leaning faction of Garvin and her admirers would disown 
#> >> you.  Calling an abortionist a fascist is even worse than calling a
#> >> Planned Parenthood member who lies to a rape victim a fascist.
#> 
#> > I left in all the extra attributions to show that Susan Garvin
#> > was not, at least for the three postings preceding the one I
#> > quote, a part of this thread.  Yet Nyikos cannot resist telling
#> > lies and attempting flames of her here.  
#
#[Not a word about what Nyikos was doing, just a weird
#rant about something or other not at all relevant]
#
#Sorry, Reverend Doug.  Were you saying something?
#I'm surprised you have the time to post.  I thought
#Christmas was the busy season for you and your church.

Oh, Dean, he was changing the subject.

It's his latest dodge.  Someone says something, DODie tries to refute
them, they point out that he didn't refute them, DODie claims
that he was really talking about something else.  

I think that church attendance must have fallen off.  

>Dean Kaflowitz

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Suzanne's Scared of O'Tuama?? Yep.
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:05:13 GMT

> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> = Steve Novak writes:

>> Boy, just when it was getting good.

>Too bad you missed it.

I didn't.  It was great, and thanks for the laughs.

>> I'm sure some of you noticed the fawning, nervous "smilies" of Suzanne as
>> she struggled to stay on the good side of Ms. O'Tuama.

>Obviously, I've never given a damn about being on _anyone's_ good side in
>this newsgroup.

Except O'Tuama.  She was slicing you to shreds when you quit the thread, and
posting in general, for several days.  Like you usually do.

>> C'mon, Suzanne!  Tell us more about all those "incredible freedoms" you
>> had to get all horny with your MANY male friends, and how this fits into
>> the "if you think of it, you're guilty" school of repressive Christianity
>> you follow.

>You jerk.  I never used the word "horny" or "lust" (as somebody else was
>throwing around here), nor anything like them, nor did I intend any meaning
>similar to them.  

Suzanne, you non-cowardly fool: this whole thing started with you using the
word "platonic" to mean something other than its actual meaning.

Your EXTREMELY clumsy and laughable attempts at explaining and squirming out
of your mistake, rather then simply acknowledging an error in word useage, is
the reason no one knows what the hell your point was even today.  Maybe you
could clarify for real this time?

>All that gutter stuff is all in your own heads.   Even 
>when it's been explained to you, you have no concept of what joy of a pure
>relationships is.

Certainly I do.  I'm in one, and I've had many before.

*You* can't understand that being a Virgin Fortress in NOT the only way
to enjoy relationships.  I don't begrudge you your chastity, nor any good
relationship you may have had.  Just quit pretending that it's YOUR WAY or
HELL WAY when it comes to relationships. 

And you *still* haven't come close to explaining the "incredible freedoms"
you allegedly enjoyed while keeping a pack of honorable virgin suitors
hanging around.

I also find it telling that anything referring to sexual enjoyment, you seem
to think is "gutter thinking".  Give us a break, Snow White.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Is Fire Bombing a Legitimate Form of Free Speach.
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 06:34:38 GMT

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

] In article <1992Dec28.013646.17778@wetware.com> 
] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] 
] >> Gee, I guess some 'civil libertarians' are too dumb to 
] >> recognize a defense of 'free speech'.  The article that
] >> I posted mentioned nothing about firebombs or death
] >> threats, but it did mention several instances where
] >> Operation Rescue had its free speech rights curtailed.
] 
] > point of order, there are active OpResKrew members who
] > are proud of their convicitons as Bombers. 
] 
] Name one 'bombing' that Operation Rescue has either condoned
] or endorsed.


At the same time you will show that the NAZi's
who convicted someone else of the Riechstag fire
were not really bad folks.....

You know the cases, they have been posted enough,
so please, fish or cut bait.

The fact that they maintain folks who are convicted
of bombings, and accept them as 'good people' contradicts
the drek about being a "pro_life" organization. Anyone who
as any experience with using improvised munitions in an
uncontrolled explosion KNOWS apriori that they are risking
BORN HUMAN LIVES.

Back to the Question DOOdie, do you consider
fire bombing to be a legitimate first ammendmant issue?


ciao
drieux






-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:24:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.103815.21024@hemlock.cray.com> 
mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

> Gee, Doug.  When are we going to see some evidence
> from you that a fetus is _capable_ of bodily autonomy?

When are we going to see a definition of "bodily autonomy"
which successfully manages to distinguish between the born 
and the not-yet born? 


>muriel


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
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: What's that?
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 20:29:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.170536.18455@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.034029.16264@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <sdz20-l@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>>->>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes to
>>>->>kebbie:
>>>->>->I'm game... Lets hear you explain the difference between a fantasy and
>>>->>->a hypothetical situation which has NO basis or cantact with the real
>>>->>->world.
>>>->>
>>>->>i can see you need to review some history, particularly
>>>->>kebbie's explanation of the GROUP kevin darcy and the
>>>->>INDIVIDUAL kevin darcy.
>>>
>>>->You mean Kebbin thinks he's a group? He has Multiple Personality
>>>->Disorder, or what?
>>>
>>>it wasn't all that complex. when kebbie was addressed,
>>>specifically by name, he claimed that a group was being
>>>addressed. it was one of those funny and sad things
>>>that kebbie does frequently. it seemed to me that it
>>>was one of those semantics games he plays to avoid
>>>admitting to a mistake which many readers saw him make,
>>>which is why so many people have teased him about it
>>>ever since then.
>>>
>>>you might have something similar developing with him in
>>>another thread, you know.
>>>
>>Wonderful. I know I once suggested to Kebbin that he let his
>>"contacts" at UMMC check his brain, but here we have it...
>>Further evidence that if they do, we'll lose him. I don't think they
>>have net access from the Psych Ward...
>
>Mark, you've allowed yourself to be flim-flammed by yet more propaganda. 
>All you need do to dispel this odor of ignorance is to ask yourself "Does 
>the term 'Kellmeyer and Darcy' denote a group, or an individual?". Assuming 
>you pick the correct answer, then the ignorance dissipates, and all is well 
>again.
>
I would say that it denotes two individuals. One named Kellmeyer and
one Darcy. As for all being well again...
Does this mean you did let one of the psych types at UMMC check you
over?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53301 alt.flame:17503 talk.bizarre:43064
From: dac@prolix.apana.org.au (Andrew Clayton)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 13:50:43 GMT
FollowUp-To: talk.abortion,alt.flame,talk.bizarre,misc.test
Organization: More like Dis~, really.
X-Newsreader: Arn V1.00

In article <1992Dec28.020456.16807@rotag.mi.org>, Kevin Darcy writes:

> In article <1103@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> >In article <1992Dec23.011900.6792@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> >>Patrick "get yer fat black ass down here" Humphrey writes:
> >
> >Using quotes around that phrase implies that Patrick actually
> >said that.  
> 
> Not when it's embedded in someone's name. Then it's obviously a nickname
> which the poster is attempting to attach to the other referenced poster.
> E.g. Susie "the floozy" Garvin.

If you're into nameflames, and you example isn't too bad, but
neither it is original.

Kevin 'Parsley' Darcy?

Kevin "smeghead" Darcy?

Kevin Darcy - Anagram.
==============
Ar, dick envy!
==============

Or if Ralph was still playing 'Envy Ra dick'.

Polewka would be proud. 

Have a nice '93

Dac
--
dac@prolix.apana.org.au              David Andrew Clayton.           // _| _  _
dac@prolix.sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au      Canberra, Australia           \X/ (_](_](_
                    <Using ARN on an Amiga 4000. Yay!>
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53861 alt.flame:17545 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:668
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Date: 2 Jan 93 14:54:05 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@crd.ge.com
Organization: "T.S.A.K.C"

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
|>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
|>>I think "arguing for legislation while claiming he doesn't want it"
|>>is the most descriptive I've seen yet.
|>
|>I don't argue for abortion restrictions. I argue only against certain
|>absolutist positions. Learn the difference.

sure you do, kevin. you argue against women's right
to terminate a pregnancy quite frequently.

you even argued that a consensus should be reached
before some women would be allowed to terminate a
pregnancy.

do your beliefs embarass you so much that you feel
compelled to deny them?
               
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: farm@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (B. Munroe)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: UTCS Public Access
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 07:02:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.223552.7308@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (B. Munroe) writes:
>>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>>> = (B. Munroe) writes:
>
>> [Stuff deleted ...]
>
>>That's why I'm a bleeding heart, liberal vegetarian AR person.
>
>(Ahem...what is an "AR person"?)
>

Sorry - forgot about the cross-post to t.a.  AR - animal rights.

Bob.



-- 
.............................................................
Bob Munroe		: Internet>	farm@utcs.utoronto.ca
The Farm		: CompuServe>	71160,3455
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: The Mendacity of Susan Garvin, Part 2 [Was: Meet Pete...]
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 13:19:37 GMT
Summary: "Doctor" Nyikos and libel
Keywords: PHoney does spelling flames

In article <nyikos.725569327@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> Of course, there are more flattering explanations, but I leave it up to
> the minions of Susan and Adrienne to provide them.  (Starting with the
> ever-helpful Dean Kaflowitz, who will probably be so anxious to help
> Susan that he won't even bother to contact her to find out HER
> explanation-- or if he does, he'll hide the fact and try to present
> it as though it were the objective, well-established truth.)


Support this libel or apologize for it.  Show any evidence that I
do this or have done this.  Otherwise, admit that you are one
of the foremost purveyors of utter rubbish in this newsgroup.
Not that your admission is actually necessary.

In the past few days, "Doctor," you have said all sorts
of things about me, that I was "kowtowing" to get into
some sort of "inner circle," the nonsense you wrote above,
that I had deleted material from an article that was somehow
important to retain, and so on.  No support for any of these
little slanders, just flung them out like so much spittle.
I think it does wonders for your credibility and image to
do so.

You are a fine example, "Doctor" Nyikos, of why first
cousins shouldn't marry.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:29:59 GMT

In article <C03Ct6.GD6@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
|> Of course this discussion is a beautiful example of a pro-abortion 
|> diversionary tactic.  To make an analogy based upon the legal and social 
|> ramifications of slavery vs. abortion is folly.  The true analogy is much 
|> more sinister in how it portrays society's ability to tolerate gross 
|> inhumanity.  Slavery is just one example.
|> 
|> Read what Stephan Douglas had to say about "choice" and slavery.  That 
|> sugar-coated concept magically reared its head way back then.  It is, of 
|> course, a very powerful tool for swaying public opinion.  Just as the 
|> magician can force one's attention away from the guilty hand -   "Look in the 
|> hat, no child here!"

Perhaps you could mention a few of the points that Stephen Douglas made
for the benefit of the net?  I'm sure both sides would be interested in
hearing them.

|> So, in fact, the analogy between slavery "pro-choicers" and abortion 
|> "pro-choicers" is pristine.  Even pro-aborts have to sleep at night.
|> 
|> 
|> - Paul

Mike Noonan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion