HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: James Keegan's morality
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:20:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.214823.6779@crd.ge.com> 
james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> We haven't yet heard whether James Keegan condones the
>> remarks of a pro-choicer who wished rape on female pro-
>> lifers. 

> prove it, 

Do you condone remarks from a pro-choicer who suggested that
female pro-lifers should be raped? 

> since you seem to have defended suzanne's attack of
> patrick's wife, do you approve of her tactics?
>
> do you approve of chaney's tactics in attacking
> patrick's wife?

You posted an article which suggested that the absence
of criticism implies acceptance of a person's remarks.
Since we haven't heard your criticism of the pro-choicer
who wished rape on female pro-lifers, it seems logical
to conclude from your post that your failure to criticize 
that pro-choicer implies acceptance of his remarks.  My 
approval or disapproval of somebody else's remarks is 
irrelevant to the current topic. 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: PatricKKK needs a friend!
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:39:41 GMT


Someone, please be PatricKKK's friend so he will stop emailing me! It
seems that he absolutely HAS to chat with me whenever something
bothers him, and he is causing me grief because of he resulting email
pollution.


>From patrick@is.rice.edu Wed Jan  6 18:24:07 1993
>Received: from lampasas.is.rice.edu by is.rice.edu (AA15330); Wed, 6 Jan 93 20:26:58 CST
>Received: by lampasas.is.rice.edu (AA00624); Wed, 6 Jan 93 20:26:57 CST
>Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 20:26:57 CST
>From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
>Message-Id: <9301070226.AA00624@lampasas.is.rice.edu>
>To: chaneysa
>Cc: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov
>In-Reply-To: Stephen A Chaney's message of Wed, 6 Jan 93 16:17:56 PST <9301070017.AA05621@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu>
>Subject: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
>Status: R
>
>So I'll take you out of the next reply I send to Chris -- never mind *he*
>sent *you* the original mail, and *I* got the cc:.  Meanwhile, read what I
>have to say about it in t.a, and learn something from it this time.
>
>--PLH, who will take care of his own life, thank you -- no outsiders need
>apply
>


  --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
                   /\
                  /  \
                 /    \
                /      \ 
               /  KKK   \ 
              /          \ 
             / ---   ---  \
            /  [ ]   [ ]   \ 
           /                \ 
          /                  \
         /      --------      \  
        /       |      |       \ 
       /        --------        \ 
      /                          \ 
     /                            \ 
/--------------------------------------\ 
|      |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.       |      | 
|      |  - PatricKKK Humphrey  |      | 

  --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
  --Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.5--
  USENET Warlord / IRC Channel Owner / Accounts WorldWide / Home Login!
	      (Whooboy that means LOTSA time for all this?)
                  The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: What is Mark Cochran's profession?
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:26:57 GMT

I'm curious to find out what Mark Cochran's profession is, 
or his intended profession.  He seems to talk like somebody
who's studying and preparing to make a lot of money as an 
abortion doctor.  He jumps to the defense of abortion doctors
who have been convicted of felonies, and he spews a lot of
garbage about how wonderful the abortion profession is.  He
doesn't seem to be aware of the field of medical ethics,
given his past statements on organ transplantation.  So,
don't be afraid Cochran, tell us your desired profession.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:19:18 GMT

In <markp.725732494@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>In <30DEC92.15120932@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>>Why do you feel pregnant women should not have a 
>>right to refuse to have their bodies used to support a fetus?

>A woman has the right to avoid conception. Once her voluntary actions
>have created a human being and placed that human in a position of 
>dependency, she has obligated herself to act in accord with that human's
>right to life.

But in an earlier post, you said abortion was OK for rape or incest since
the woman was not pregnant by choice. Assuming she used some method of
birth control, she is again not pregnant by choice. Will you please make
up your mind.

BTW, if you know the definition of *incest*, you will also know that it
does not stipulate whether it is forced or consensual*.

* please note the spelling - the root is consensus not consent - just
a gentle spelling flame so that I can interpret what it is some of
you sophomores are trying to convey.

>Mark Pundurs

REB
	I knew I shouldn't have taken that nasty pill this morning.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Any ProNapalm Fans out there?
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:16:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.221403.22732@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
|> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
|> ] In article <1992Dec30.092753.12246@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
|> ] |> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
|> ] |> ] 
|> ] |> ] What's the problem?  Most 
|> ] |> ] would gladly accept that label.  Unless, of course, you're just a wee bit 
|> ] |> ] uneasy with the concept of abortion.  A hint of concsience maybe?
|> ] |>  
|> ] |> Just thought I would ask,
|> ] |> or is this too a matter of conscience?
|> ] 
|> ] I wouldn't use napalm myself, but I'm for the rights of others to use it.
|> ] So I guess I'm pro-choice.  ;->
|>  
|> Is this an Awareness of MoralGuilt Creeping OUT?
|> 
|> Its Not that you want to Use Napalm, but you will 
|> allow others to use it......
|> 
|> Why Not come Right out and Admit that Latently You
|> are AntiMilitary, and Want to Dehumanize All Vets,
|> and deprive them of a Primary Defensive Mechanism....

I din't respond to this initially since I thought it was a form of
sarcasm and I wasn't sure if I was really being insulted or not.

I am an officer in the military, sir.  My comment was meant to
point out what I perceive to be an inconsistancy in belief with
those pro-choicers who believe that abortion is wrong, but they
feel that they have no right to lobby for legislation against it.
That is, I believe that if something is wrong for me, it is wrong
for others as well.  I certainly don't have the right to impose
my will upon others directly, but I do think that I have a moral
imperative to vote my will on others.  That is what the country
in which I live is all about, IMHO.  Those who disagree with me
are obligated to vote otherwise.

I am not a regular on this group and as such do not know your
view and will not presume to guess it.  If I have misunderstood
your comments, you will forgive me.  I am losing net access as
of today as I report for active duty shortly.  Thus, I will be
unfortunately unable to see nor answer any response you may have.

|> { did I get the right sort of DearOldDoug 273 degree
|> to port turn on that? }
|> 
|> ciao
|> drieux
|> 
|> ps: Paul, the ball is in your court....
|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> Modern Day Problems:
|> 
|> This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
|> You are just reading beyond the edge.

Mike Noonan
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Date: 7 Jan 93 04:17:23 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1993Jan7.025534.26006@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

> A bunch of lamentable but I guess true stories about children being
> killed.  It doesn't have much to do with abortion at all, but it 
> rather nicely underscores that illegality doesn't offer much protection.
> It was illegal to kill those kids, I presume...

As Ms. Forgach said to you once, "the law teaches".  Have you
thought about what she said? 


>Galen Hekhuis 


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Subject: Re: not a man of his word?
Followup-To: misc.test
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
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:15:09 GMT

demonstrating what he later admits, newbie twit
martin@world.std.com (Martin J Hannigan) writes:
-> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> >for those of you who sometimes read headers of
-> >crossposted articles ........
-> >
-> >    'I do *not* want to discuss any child support
-> >     issues in alt.flame any more. Not "Re: Hillel",
-> >     not "Re: Paying for Pleasure", not any of them.'
-> >          kevin@cfctech (Kevin Darcy)      
-> >          <1990Nov10.170334.5406@cfctech.cfc.com>
-> 
-> WHO CARES. 

i suspect many of the people who voted to create
alt.child-support to get darcy out of alt.flame
care. i suspect many of the people who voted darcy
to the council of net.idiots care. who knows? there
may be others. you must feel quite the fool posting
to a newsgroup you know nothing about, eh?

-> Since I am realtively recent arrival 

so you've demonstrated.

here's how you can catch on fast. just read the
newsgroups kebbie posts to. flame the people who
flame kebbie. there will be lots of them.

and the net can always find a place for
idiot.wannabees.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: MEET GEORGE TILLER, LATE-TERM ABORTIONIST Part Two
Keywords: abortion, digoxin, laminaria, pro-death
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:47:37 GMT

>     = vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>    = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>v>   = vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>bk>  = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>>pn> = nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>pn> The cold light of reality begins with the fee schedule.  Sixteen to 22
>>pn> weeks, $750; 22 to 26 weeks, $1800.  Beyond 26 weeks, $2200.  

>bk> (2) IF the fact the Dr. Tiller charges money for abortions demonstrates
>bk>    that he's only in it for the money, THEN what can we conclude when
>bk>    Dr.s & hospitals charge even more for live births?  

>v> Gotta share a little story with y'all here.  My mother is an ob/gyn nurse
>v> [...] a patient in the hospital for an elective abortion [...]
>v> was completely ready for the operation, and just before they were going
>v> to start it, the doctor asked the patient if she had brought the money to
>v> [...] You tell me, was that doctor interested that patients health?  [...]
>v>
>v> My dentist gives me a month to pay her bills.

>> Well folks, there you have it: two little stories that clearly establish
>> that Dr. Tiller (as well as all doctors who do abortions?) are primarily
>> motivated by money, whereas all other doctors are not.

> Sir,
>
> I challenge you to show me where I even hinted that A. All abortionists are
> in it for the money and B. that all other doctors are not.  If I did not say
> this do not attribute it to me.

OK, we'll note that you don't want to be associated with the statement
or suggestion that Dr. Tiller (or abortionists in general) are primarily 
in it for the money.

My sincere apologies.  Based on the subject of the thread, which is
"abortionists" in general, and Dr. Tiller in particular, I assumed you
were making a point about Dr. Tiller and/or "abortionists" in general.
My mistake.

If you want to change the subject, then sure, I will readily agree that 
"abortionists DO EXIST who are clearly motivated solely by money and not 
compassion".  But this is such a weak statement that it's almost pointless 
to mention it.  I also strongly suspect that doctors (of most varieties) 
DO EXIST who are clearly motivated primarily by money.  But again, so what? 

---------------------
> I simply illustrated that abortionists do exist who are clearly motivated
> solely by money and not compassion.  Abortion is a very profitable business,
> generally more profitable than many other surgeries.  [...]

But as has been recently documented, abortion is no where near as 
profitable as normal child-birth.  This apparently renders the well worn
abortionists-are-only-in-it-for-the-money argument invalid.

-Brian
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: dodie exposed lying, again
Date: 10 Jan 93 04:45:08 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

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> >> We haven't yet heard whether James Keegan condones the
-> >> remarks of a pro-choicer who wished rape on female pro-
-> >> lifers. 
-> 
-> > prove it, 
-> 
-> Do you condone remarks from a pro-choicer who suggested that
-> female pro-lifers should be raped? 

prove the remarks occured.

prove i saw them.

prove that they occured, that i saw them, and that i
did not comment.

-> > since you seem to have defended suzanne's attack of
-> > patrick's wife, do you approve of her tactics?
-> >
-> > do you approve of chaney's tactics in attacking
-> > patrick's wife?
-> 
-> You posted an article which suggested that the absence
-> of criticism implies acceptance of a person's
-> remarks.

prove it. keep in mind when you fake whatever quotes
i expect you'll fake that i will repost the entire
article, unedited.

-> Since we haven't heard your criticism of the pro-choicer
-> who wished rape on female pro-lifers, it seems logical
-> to conclude from your post that your failure to criticize 
-> that pro-choicer implies acceptance of his
-> remarks.

no. it does not. it seems completely illogical for
you to post accusations about action or the lack of
it resulting from events which you have not and can
not prove happened. it seems, in fact, that you are
simply lying, again. or perhaps, you're just
demonstrating the lack of success of your therapy.

-> My 
-> approval or disapproval of somebody else's remarks is 
-> irrelevant to the current topic. 

this statement is not correct. you voluntarily
entered a conversation regarding vicious attacks on
patrick and his family. prior to your voluntary
entrance in that conversation, no one mentioned your
name. since your participation has been to defend
the attacks on patrick and his family, it is
perfectly reasonable to ask if you approve of those
remarks.

it is equally reasonable, however, to assume that
you will lie or dodge the question as you have done
so many times in the past on other issues.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Does Doodie Shave with Occams Razor?
Followup-To: alt.sex,soc.singles
Summary: DooDieIsm
Keywords: logic in DooDieIsm
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 09:32:18 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] 
]   "Lack of proof in favor of
]    existance can be considered to resonably show nonexistance. This holds
]    true in many areas. Lack of proof of the existance of a god has lead
]    many peopel to conclude that no such being exists."
] 
]        mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
]        <1993Jan6.200941.13165@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
] 

Dear Doodie,

I presume that you will some day grow up
to be old enough to have a Beard. May I
recommmend that you NOT get yourself 
near unto Occams Razor, as it may hurt you.

Or is it the case that you still hold that
sound waves travel through the 'Ether' as
one is Obliged to presume, given your DooDieIsm?

We will Note that we can presume that you
Hold that sound waves move through the 
ether as no proof has been presented to
the contrary, and by your Brilliant Refutation
of Komrade Kokhran's position we understand that
you hold that anything Not Yet Prooven is presumed to be true.

ciao
drieux

ObUnPleasantNess: Kid, Come back and talk to me when
		you shave with something more dangerous
		than a wash cloth....

ObTechnicalNote: Ok Happy Kampfers, let this be a 
		warning in HOW NOT to flame someone....


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: "Olivia Newton-John is the grand-daughter 
of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Sir Edmund Newton-John." --Frank

Clear Proof Of Genetic Superiority, eh No????
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54613 alt.pagan:15102 alt.sport.paintball:1292 alt.personals:25334
From: thomas@smaug.uio.no (Thomas Gramstad)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.pagan,alt.sport.paintball,alt.personals
Subject: ISO stormwind
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:36:45 GMT
Reply-To: thomas@smaug.uio.no
Organization: University of Oslo

I'm looking for stormwind, who used to be at
amazon@inferno.esd.sgi.com, but that machine no longer
exists.  Please mail any information directly to me.
-----------------------------------------------------
Thomas Gramstad        thomas@smaug.uio.no
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:40:23 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


markp@joplin.wri.com writes:
|mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
|>And since you oppose the womans right to medical intervention to alter
|>the outcome of her sex act, you will decline medical intervention to
|>alter the outcome of your auto accident, correct?

|No -- because medical intervention into the effects of an auto
|accident doesn't violate anyone else's right to life.

And neither does abortion.  QED.  

---
C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
"Perhaps my favorite moment was when a pro-lifer threatened to 
kill me.  Or maybe it was when a pro-lifer said I should have been 
aborted.  Nah, the best moment was when the one who said I 
should be killed claimed to respect all life."  --Jay Stein, in talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Organization: Clark University
Date: 7 JAN 93 16:54:03 GMT

In a previous article, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) wrote:
>In article <1ickh8INN200@meaddata.meaddata.com> 
> 
>There's another article in the Jan. 3 edition of the Chicago Tribune
>about the killings of children in the Chicago area during 1992, some
>of them newborn babies killed shortly after birth by their parents.  
>Here are just a few stories:

I'm glad you posted these tragic stories.  Imagine how many more of these 
stories there would be if abortion were illegal and millions of women were 
forced to give birth children they don't want.

>  Baby girl Strejc, newborn
>  Donna Strejc, 24, was stabbed in the chest just after 5 am
>  on the city's West Side.  Afterwards, she gave birth prematurely
>  to a baby girl at Mt. Sinai Hospital. The baby died about 20
>  minutes after being born.  Michael Baker, 30, was charged with
>  intentional homicide of an unborn child and also with first-
>  degree murder.

I left this example in to point out again that pregnant women face not only 
medical risks, but also the risk of death and serious harm from violence.  
In general, pregnant women may be less able to defend themselves or run away 
from an attacker than non-pregnant women.  The director of our local battered 
women's shelter found that cases of domestic violence against women tend to 
increase and intesify after the announcement of the wife's first pregnancy.

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:29:12 GMT

In <1993Jan8.164325.8820@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:

>> = (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>>(The most fundamental right being life, she may not choose her
>>economic or career security over the baby's right to life.)

>Sure she can, Mark.  At least in the U.S.  Where are you from?

Fine; make that, "...she may not ethically choose..."

>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:17:31 GMT

Don't SCARED; post your real name!  We won't laugh if you're another
incarnation of Chaney.       

> = n3329@anon.penet.fi writes:

>Killing babies is wrong because they are human beings just like everyone
>else. 

<Dean and Jerry voices ON...>

"Why don't you blow me....
 a kiss as you're leaving me?"

>They didn't do anything wrong and killing them says a lot about the
>way we treat each other. 

It shows you're a taco short of a Combination Plate.
(R. Williams)

>We should help pregnant women experience pregnancy
>with dignity instead of having to get abortions because of circumstances
>they can't control. 

You're frothing.  Calm down.  Many women consider an abortion the
ultimate in dignity, considering forced birth as the alternative.

[Preachy bullshit deleted...]


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:19:08 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1993Jan11.135239.13765@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> In article <C0KBxJ.10x@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
> > My remarks are directed at ideas not people.  

Thanks to Mark Cochran.  I forgot Mr Lebow's comment to
Muriel that she sounded like a bitter person.  Another
people-directed remark.  I can't imagine how I forgot
that one.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity