HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Doug Holtsinger is not correct
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:08:02 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug25.185900.26013@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>  decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.165321.25266@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsin
> > In article <1992Aug25.140639.6280@bmw.mayo.edu>
> > bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
> >
> > > A fetus has never been a legal person.
> >
> > Before Roe v. Wade was handed down, there was never any constitutional
> > right to kill a member of the human species.
>
> This statement is not correct.  Unlike Doogie, however, I have
> more than blatant assertion or idle speculation to support
> my remarks.
>
> Reference constitutional statements regarding treason.
> Reference numerous Supreme Court decisions in which the
> right of the states to execute prisoners was upheld as
> constitutional.
>
> Try again, Doogie.

Not only that, but abortion prior to quickening was completely legal and
accepted in this country up until the 1870s, when the American Medical
Association led a fierce campaign to make abortion illegal except when
authorized and performed by a licensed physician.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34346 alt.flame:12480
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: And Now, You're A Halfwit!!
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:19:12 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <BtwrKA.BLG@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> Yes, sorry Dan - you see...
Well, I'm not Dan, but we kind of permit each of us to speak for
the other since we suspect that we may very well be the same
person except I can't golf, so I'll field this one, though
Dan is certainly at liberty to appear in the role of himself.

> ...Still, aren't ya a little curious to know how old Leftie is?...

No, not even a little bit.  I was quite surprised that you claim
to be 19 since you write as though you were four or so.  But
maybe you meant 19 months, which makes you a very clever
little boy for your age.  Consider yourself electronically patted
on the head and now run along and play with the other
children.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:23:29 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Aug27.205422.12420@noao.edu>
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article <94392@bu.edu>, by kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star):

>>Disdain of homosexuality is learned. Are you going to teach your daughter
>>to frown upon two women or two men holding hands in public?

>Like I said, I think y'all are just paranoid.   You see hatred even where
>there isn't any.

Hmmm...I suppose all that stuff you wrote about "homosexuality and
misogyny being connected" and  how "gay relationships were naturally
inferior to straight relationships in the eyes of God" and how "children
should not be raised in same-sex households" is all a figment of
my imagination...

Brian

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago)
Subject: Selfishness (was  Re: Compassion (was: Re: I Tend To Be...)
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 06:44:43 GMT


In article <1992Aug27.194956.10215@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>An admirable choice for the woman brave enough to risk it.  I had a
>great-aunt whom the doctors BEGGED to stop having children because they
>were sure that each next one would kill her.   She had 4, and when her
>doctor asked her "Why, why, why?", her answer was, "I can't think of a
>more beautiful way to go."

Sounds pretty selfish to me. If she kept having children knowing that
childbirth could kill her, then she willingly risked leaving the   
children she already had without a mother, and someone else would
be taking on the full responsibility of raising those children.
Once she's dead, that's it. It's not going to matter to *her*
what happens to the people left behind. (Does god forgive willful
selfishness? If so, then she would go to heaven. If there's no suffering
in heaven, then I suppose she would be spared having to see the suffering
she caused with her stubbornness. If god does not forgive willfull
selfishness, then her children--assuming they *do* get to heaven--would
be without a mother on earth and in heaven. Thanks a lot Ma!)

Family Values. Right.

Vickie
Anti-abortion, Pro-adoption, Pro-birth control, Pro-sex education, Pro-life

    *** PRO-CHOICE ***   *** PRO-CHOICE ***   *** PRO-CHOICE ***
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:49:38 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  <1992Aug25.125323.13224@menudo.uh.edu>  HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>
>   As Grand Poobah of the He-Man Woman-Hater's Society, I have in fact, been
> granted just those powers under our Constitutional Charter.  In the interests
> of peace, I have entered into this agreement with well-known bomb-throwing
> reactionary, Mark "IRA" Kaufman, to subjugate all women to our will, return
> them to the kitchens and washrooms where they belong,

I will fight these efforts with everything in my power, you sexist, fascist,
misogynistic scum-sucking pig.

> and create a harem of sex-slaves to service our every depraved whim.

Umm, but if you win, we're still pals, right?  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: What is Wrong with this picture?????
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 09:37:47 GMT

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

] In article <1992Sep1.183441.9858@wdl.loral.com> 
] bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
] 
] > The patriarchal view is that women should not have the right to
] > abortion.  The reason: it gives women the power to control
] > reproduction.  
] 
] The patriarchal view is that abortion should be unrestricted 
] so that men have a better chance of escaping from their 
] responsibilities towards women and children.  
] 
] >J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
] 
] Doug Holtsinger


Who decided that it is a Man's Responsibility to
Take care of Women and Children?????

And What man is responsible for this child's Posts?


ciao
drieux





-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:09:09 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Aug31.122448.2125@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com writes:

> of course you do. no one would ever question that.
> as ms. birmingham said above:
> 
>         "That it is not surprising that someone who
>         desires to control what women do with their
>         bodies would wish to control the content of
>         people's posts.  I can't imagine any other
>         reason for restricting freedom of expression."

  Just a point of information.  Mr. Holtzinger explicitly left himself out of
the proposed list of moderators, which included both pro-choice and pro-life
posters familiar to the regulars here (you have a right to disagree with cer-
tain of those individuals, but at least both sides were represented).

  For these reasons, I find the nature of the above attack explicable only by
Ms. Birmingham's feelings towards Mr. Holtzinger, and not on the merits of
the proposal.

  I am forced to agree with Mr. Chaney's opinion that this is simply a flame
at Holtzinger, and not a valid reason to not have a moderated group.

  Personally, I repeat my previous objection to the mod group, namely that while
a lack of flaming would be nice, the sheer volume would be enough to swamp any
one moderator, and I have no idea if two is even possible.  It WOULD be nice
to see the majority of arguments made on something a bit more subsantial than
cutesy little snide comments on other's motives and such (of which, alas, I am
also guilty of) -- but I will not be holding my breath.

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: 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
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:36:26 GMT

In article <lefty-260892170513@lefty.apple.com> 
lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
 
>>decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>>> Fetuses had never received legal protection under the law,

>> This statement is not correct.

> Well, by all means, _correct_ it

Before Roe v. Wade was handed down, many states had abortion
laws which gave protection to fetuses.  


>Lefty (lefty@apple.com)


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35038 alt.abortion.inequity:3523
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 4 Sep 1992 08:53:48 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep3.173346.8432@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <180v8qINNn64@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>Wrong.  I can be legally forced to 'support' an abortion.  Remember, under
>>>the current system, I have NO SAY AT ALL.  Just an obligation to pay
>>>through the nose.
>>Bullshit.  You have no obligation to pay for abortion, period.
>Bullshit.  I CAN be legally forced to support the child if the woman
>decides to have it.

And how, precisely, is the legal obligation of child support equated to
"forced to 'support' an abortion?"  

See, John, some of us on this net have been through this backward argument
before.  Argue that abortion denies father's their rights, so (drumroll)
let's OUTLAW abortion.  It's just a backdoor approach to the same thing.

Child support is an obligation due to a living, breathing, existing child.
It does *not* occur prior to the birth of a child, and it does *not* extend
to a legal obligation to pay for an abortion procedure.  In fact, the two
do not comingle, since an abortion kinda sorta guarantees neither parent has
child support responsibility.

So get your argument right, bub.  You do not have any obligation to pay for
an abortion.  None.   The dollar obligation does not pass as an argument
against abortion.

You want to argue forced birth, with cooresponding arguments about child
support, there's another group for that.

(re: Christianity as a source for the 'morality' in law.)

>Why do you suppose those laws just HAPPEN to COINCIDE?

Because Christians would be damned fools to ignore basic economic concepts,
that's why.  You'll note that the jews, buddists, and unitarians all seem
to follow along, too.  The concepts that murdering folk is a 'bad thing'
predates Christianity by many centuries.  Ditto burglary and theft.  Ditto
most of the civilizing notions that are economic necessities to the most
basic concept of 'society'.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:01:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.152616.972@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de () writes:
>
>And an abortion will slip her mind?  Regardless of whether you *think*
>the e/f is a person or not, I'd say a lot of women who have abortions
>*feel* that it is/was.  The head is happy but the heart's insane,

If a woman feels that the fetus/whatever is a person, deserving of legal
protection, and it is wrong to destroy it, then either she shouldn't have
an abortion or be prepared to do some pretty serious dissonance reduction.

I have no statistics, but I would venture a guess (based on the fact that
most women who have abortions are sure it was the right decision) that
they don't feel that way about the fetus.

I would also venture a guess (based on what I've learned from women who
"regret" abortions) that those women who do regret the decision were
coerced in some manner to abort; women who made their own decisions were
happy with their decison.  Same goes for women who give birth, BTW--women
who feel coerced in some manner to give birth have difficult feelings, but
women who are happy to become a mother (possibly again) are happy with
the decision.  It's kinda funny how good having control over such
basic functions of your body makes you feel.


>as the song goes.  You don't bring a woman who has recently had an 
>abortion to the local kid's playground.  Why is that?
>

Why not?  If I had an abortion, I might very well go to the playground
soon afterwards, as I have a three-year-old who just loves playgrounds.
Did you just make this statement up?  IT sounds like it.

>Whether this represents a profound truth about abortion, or just 
>society's conditioning of the mother, I couldn't say.   But why
>should it be that a woman can control her intellect sufficiently
>to rebel against society's norms (in my country abortion is illegal)
>and not her emotions?
>

Most of the folks that I know who are pro-choice DO control their emotions
on this issue; most of the folks that I kow who are pro-life, don't, or
can't.  Most women I have known who have had abortions look at it from
a strictly logical point of view.  In fact, all of them have.  

What makes you think that women DON'T look at this decision logically?


Jennifer
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Fodder for DOD's .sig (Was: Pro-Choice Challenge)
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:41:19 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


DOD has come up with Yet Another cute as hell .sig.  DOD, if it 
wouldn't be too much trouble could you add my name right below
Susan's in your cute little .sig.  I agree with Susan so I wouldn't
mind being added.  I bet you could make your own little list of
people who agree with Susan here and come up with a way cute .sig.  
Its understandable that you wouldn't understand what we are saying
here, but don't let that stop you.  

In article <1992Aug30.225649.16236@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>Doug Holtsinger

>      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
> that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
> we want to be precise)..."
>   -- Gloria Feldt,
>      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
     -- dking@nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)  <Insert header info here>

Dan King
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34921 alt.flame:12538
From: trashman@crud.mn.org (Barry Schwartz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting)
Date: 4 Sep 92 00:46:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.hyppcrite.kebbie.kebbie.kebbie
Organization: TSAKC-TC

In article <1992Aug31.021217.24321@rotag.mi.org>
        kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

]Dean, you should really try to get access to a system that carries alt.flame.
]Sounds like you have a lot of emotional baggage to get rid of.

Gee, Kebbie, I know you are a sack of something, but I wouldn't refer
to you as "baggage".


--
Barry Schwartz        trashman@crud.mn.org
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: 1-900-fone-sex (was: myths about PP or something)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:02:10 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article <1992Aug22.130432.2159@brandonu.ca>, by mcbeanb@brandonu.ca:
>> In article <1992Aug22.001019.17734@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>> From article by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
>>>> In article ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:
>>> 
>>>> [Loren and Ilana discussing various forms of what they call
>>>>  "non-contact sex", the details of which I just can't bear to repeat.]
>>> 
>>> My gosh.  I've never heard such a ridiculous term in all my life as
>>> "non-contact sex".  What a hoot!  Tain't sex if it's "non-contact", 
>>> now is it.
>>> 
>>> Why don't y'all just buy yourselves trashy novels and be done with it.
>> 
>> Masturbation and phone sex are forms of sex.


>Some people might indulge in such activities, but I would be willing to bet
>that no one in the world would claim he could possibly have lost his virginity
>over the telephone.

You are clearly using the definition of virginity that means not having had 
sexual intercourse.  In other words, in the case you make, having 'sex' is 
limited to male/female penetration of the vagina with the penis.

I would bet that to the vast majority of people on this net (and likely in 
the world) sex is not limited to this...

While two teenagers engaging in mutual oral sex might technically be
virgins, I would hardly say they weren't having sex.

Jeez, Suzanne, where DID you get such a warped view of sex?

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 06:16:16 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

My apologies in taking so long to reply to these rantings, we've been
trying to help some of my relatives to cope with hurricane damage and
I've been rather busy.

>From article <vshyd+a@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> 
>>>Don'tcha get it, Steve?  Most self proclaimed pro-choicers, say like
>>>Rocker/Cathi Cook, are pro-"choice" in name only.   They do NOTHING to
>>>provide women with any choice BUT abortion.   
>> 
>> You are lying, Forgach.
>> 
>> Just for laughs, I'll ask you to prove this statement or post an
>> apology to me.


>Cathi, you proved it yourself, in your long article which I just responded
>to, that you will not involve yourself in helping abortion alternative
>organizations provide prenatal help.   

Forgach, you are simply laughable.  Here you imply that the only possible
way of helping a pregnant woman is through some sort of ill-defined 
"abortion alternative agency".  Rigid little world you must live in.

>Cathi, even if you donated your
>children's outgrown baby clothes, your own used maternity clothes, it
>would be SOMETHING.

In fact, Forgach, I have done both of these as well as many other 
things to help pregnant women who need it.  I don't make a habit 
of broadcasting my actions across the net.

You are simply unable to comprehend the meaning of "pro-choice".
I support the choices women make without questioning their motives
to make sure that _their_ motives meet with _my_ approval.  There are
a lot of women that I think would be better off not having babies.
But if they choose to do so, I just don't figure it's my business
to question their motives.  Likewise, when I find that a loving,
caring woman has had an abortion, I don't say "Why on earth did 
you do that????  I think you'd make a WONDERFUL mother!"  Cause I
just don't figure it's my business why someone chooses to become
a parent or not.  And I don't figure it's anyone else's business
why I made my choices, either.

>Do it!

I already have, more than once.  Seems you're looking pretty nasty
and silly, yet again.

                  -rocker
                   still not holding her breath for the apology
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because:
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 21:47:00 GMT

<1992Aug24.234019.8609@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) said:
>In article <1992Aug17.020302.5094@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>>If abortion is murder, there can be no compromising the fetus's rights.
>>If it is not murder, there can be no disregarding the deaths of women from
>>back-alley abortions that result when abortion is proscribed. Any
>>"compelling state interest" must be weighed against *all* of the
>>negative consequences of restrictive legislation.
>
>Well, using drugs is not murder instantly, but we ban it and we live with
>the consequences of illegal drug use, every day.

Using drugs is never murder, no matter how long you wait.  Giving drugs
might be murder depending on circumstances.  As for the consequences of
drugs being illegal; I think it's a travesty.  The only thing that makes
the drug issues so dangerous is that they are illegal.

>Tell the American people that you'd consistently apply this reasoning to
>issues outside of abortion - like drugs.
>
>Then, forget any hopes you might have of being elected to any office. While
>you're at it, join the Jerry Brown or Bill "Don't Inhale" Clinton Club.

There's little doubt, after watching the Republirat Detention, that there
is a large subculture in America that does not want to hear the truth.


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,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:58:42 GMT

> = (Don Beaver) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:

>>I feel sorry for any woman dumb enough to fall for a walking time bomb
>>like you, Will.

>That's what I like about this group: intelligent repartee.     :-|

That's what I dislike about you, Beaver: your dishonest editing.

Maybe if you'd left in Steeves' comment about KILLING a woman "on the
spot" for not telling him about an abortion 'til a year later, then most
people would understand my reply.

I can't beLIEVE you didn't give Steeve' shit for HIS anti-women comment.
Speaks volumes on what you think is important.
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion