HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Any ProNapalm Fans out there?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 09:27:53 GMT

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?

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
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.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 20:02:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.021358.18235@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

[Where's that chainsaw...]

>Not really. They could opt to just run the risk of a lawsuit. The point here
>is that Cochran has thrown his support behind a "legal restriction" that 
>doesn't exist right now. Above, you even admit that persons OTHER than the 
>patient, can sign the consent forms, but Cochran made no such qualification
>when he announced his "legal restriction". Above, you seem to admit that 
>while the consent forms may "feel" [sic] like a statutory requirement, that 
>they may not in fact be a statutory requirement. Unless you have a rabbit to 
>pull out of your hat now, I think it's time to admit that no such "legal 
>restriction" exists.

Wrong again, Kebbin.  I had six teeth pulled a couple of months ago.  They
wouldn't do the surgery until I had signed the form.  Obviously, if I was
under the age of consent, my legal guardians would have to sign.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=This .signature file will be in Chicago, Illinois, USA From 12/26/92 until   =
=01/03/92.  Have you given *YOUR* .signature a vacation from the net lately???=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 23:23:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.212418.17960@netcom.com> 
bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> The only people with political agendas are those
>> who are inconsistent in their terminology.  You
>> should either stick to 'medically correct' terms,
>> or use the terms 'woman' and 'child'. 

> The set of all things which can be called "pregnant women" is
> identical to the set of all things which can be called "gravida", so
> "pregnant woman" can be used interchangeably with "gravida" with no
> ambiguity.
>
> The set of all things which can be called "embryo", "zygote", or
> "fetus" is a subset of the larger set of all things which can be
> called "children", so when you say "children" in reference to
> abortions where you were really referring to a z/e/f, you're being
> ambiguous.  

That's besides the point--the original poster suggested
that people should use the 'medically correct' terminology
when discussing abortion.  The terms 'fetus' and 'gravida'
are the medically correct terms for the child and woman
involved.  So why doesn't the poster use the term 'gravida'?


> I'd say you're also being intellectially dishonest,
> because most people who talk about "children being aborted" do so
> intending to prey on peoples' emotions towards kids.

Nope, people use the terms 'child' and 'woman' because it's 
consistent terminology.   People use inconsistent terminology 
like 'fetus' and 'woman' in order to dehumanize the child and 
prey on peoples' emotions towards women. 
  

>Brian Kendig            


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: More Bare-Fased Lies from TSAKC:
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 18:37:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec26.222823.13078@rotag.mi.org> 
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>> I'll happily stand on my net reputation for lying versus yours.  

> I'll happily stand the validity of most "net reputations" against truth
> anytime.
>
> If there didn't exist people like our dear TSAKC who spend virtually all of 
> their posting time trying to fabricate people's "net reputations", then maybe
> "net reputations" would be a useful yardstick, Stephen. But with all the
> context-cutting, misdirection, obfuscation, and outright LYING that these
> folks do, do you really think that the resulting "net reputations" are worth 
> a damn? They are tainted by the obvious vendettas of the people that create 
> and sculpt them.

Does "TSAKC" do anything besides fabricating "net reputations"?
I haven't really seen any pro-choice arguments from them,  
with perhaps the exception of Galen Hekhuis.  Most of the
others, like Susan Garvin, James Keegan, and Patrick Humphrey,
seem to spend all their time attacking other people. Perhaps
those are the "entrance requirements" into TSAKC -- you must
spend a majority of your time fabricating "net reputations". 
Hey Galen Hekhuis, you better get busy, or else you might 
get kicked out!!

>- Kevin


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: The Mendacity of Susan Garvin, Part 1 (Was: Laugh...)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 13:48:19 GMT

"Doctor" Nyikos once aqgain fails to get things right.

In article <nyikos.725144278@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1088@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> 
> >In article <nyikos.724975331@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> 
> >[Stephen Mezias' comments deleted - he's answered for himself]
> 
> >#I was tempted to change the subject title to "Laugh of the week from
> >#Mezias," but then I realized that this is no laughing matter; maybe
> >#it *is* one to Mezias, though, just as it apparently was to Susan Garvin.  
> 
> {Lefty-style bravado by Susan deleted}
> 
> >#Dean Kaflowitz
> >#covered up for her as best he could, in response to a post in which I took
> >#a flippant comment by Susan, and asked her whether she considers the 
> >#accusation against Will to be all a big game, with no relevance to anything
> >#going on in the real world.  Susan never answered the question, perhaps
> >#thinking that Kaflowitz made me and everyone else forget about it.

I left this alone last time because I had no idea what the "Doctor"
was babbling about.

> >I've forgotten all about it.  (Yes, Reverend Holtsinger, really.)
> >(Oh, yeah, PHoney, you won't get the previous reference.  Too bad.)
> 
> All of which goes to show how seriously Susan takes these matters.
> 
> >I'll answer your question now that I see it, though - no, I don't
> >think that reposting Steeves' own words and confronting him with
> >them was a joke.  I think that Steeves sincerely wishes that
> >he'd never posted that particular article.  He did post it, though.
> 
> I was referring back then to the charge that Steeves would kill
> Kaflowitz, the Designated Liar on her team for that post, jumped
> in to deflect my well-earned flame by deleting everything of Susan's
> that I was attacking and by 
> lying that I had posted much more irrational statements than the ones
> for which I was attacking Susan.  
> 
> I challenged Kaflowitz to show evidence of these "irrational", "stupid"
> statements and he backed down and withdrew the charge of stupidity.

And reasserted it very soon afterwards when you provided many
examples of your stupidity.  Like your inability to understand
attributions, and one I truly enjoyed, the charge that I had
"deleted everything of Susan's."  I remind you, you dim little
lad, that I deleted not a word, that I was following someone
else's posting and that someone else had deleted the material
in question, and that you had tacked the original posting onto
your followup to mine, which clearly showed that the material
had been deleted prior to my followup.

You really are one dim little fellow, "Doctor."

Do tell us which mail order university sent you your doctorate.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: 22 Dec 92 01:09:49 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec15.213658.790@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>> = dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Clearly, pro-choicers who support unrestricted abortion-on-
>> demand must argue that the child should not be considered
>> as a person.  This position implies that newborn infants 
>> are not persons, since there is no difference between a 
>> late-term fetus and an infant, and hence these pro-choicers 
>> must condone infanticide.

>Are you really unable to identify any significant distinguishing factors
>between a late-term fetus and an infant?!
>If so, I'll suspect that many people will find it difficult to
>engage in a meaningful dialog with you.

>-Brian

I hope not. Imagine what his poor wife must have gone through when he tried
to practice diapering on a six month old fetus. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: PRO-LIFE SEASON'S GREETINGS
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:47:35 GMT

In <1992Dec29.052604.26318@samba.oit.unc.edu> Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:

>In article <nyikos.725557125@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>I wish a happy Christmas season to everyone, including the abortionists,
>>those super-Grinches 

>Can't you even say "Happy Christmas" without smirking and pontificating?

Howdy, stranger.  I don't recall ever following up to you before, but 
I think it's time we got acquainted.  

You were forewarned by the thread title.  I had a non-pontificating wish
in an earlier post, whose title also mentioned Christmas.

I hope I haven't offended you by leaving your name off the list of 
people who require a mountain of evidence before taking any evidence
of false statements by Susan Garvin seriously, while taking her word
(or flimsy wisps of evidence) about other people lying.

If I did, my apologies.  

>>Were it not for the above HOPE ["that there is a life after death and a
>>very powerful, very merciful God"]

>... then you wouldn't be celebrating Christmas, Petey dear.  Never mind
>your abortion position.

Ever hear of Santa Claus?  ACLU?  Santa balancing creche scenes?

I think *Lots* of people celebrate Christmas without nurturing any
such hope as the above.  Even Ebenezer Scrooge, even at the end of
the book, gives no hint of hoping there is a God.

>>Finally, here is a special Christmas season wish to those little ones
>>whom I sometimes fondly call "Whos from Whoville", aborted by the
>>super-Grinches, that they may indeed experience their First Birth

>You'd like the 'little ones' who have already been *aborted* to experience
>birth?  Are you a reincarnationist, or just incoherent?

It was an allusion to the "Second Birth" in "Hark the Herald Angels Sing."

I say this for the benefit of people who tuned in late, since you know
damn well what I was talking about, having deleted my long painstaking
explanation of what I meant by "First Birth."

Yes, I do believe apologies are in order *all around*.

>To append my (belated) wishes to Peter's ...

>I hope that everyone, regardless of faith or politics, had a merry and
>blessed December, and I wish you all an exciting and prosperous new year.

On this, at least we are in agreement.  I hereby add my wishes to yours.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 23:23:26 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->No, Muriel, any human organism which _could_ function outside of the womb
->is by definition "capable" of bodily autonomy. This is, in fact, why 
->viability is such an all-important dividing line.

it's only important, kebbie, to those who argue to
restrict or prohibit a woman's decision to terminate a
pregnancy.

do you want to restrict or prohibit a woman's right to
terminate a pregnancy, kebbie?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: DODie defends Operation Rescue
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 13:35:18 GMT

I'm not sure how my initial request for information ("I'd like to see
Operation Rescue in action") got turned into a discussion on
'unbiased' sources, but I'll narrow down and clarify my request anyway.

Are there any abortion clinic blockade/defense operations planned in
the San Francisco Bay Area?  Would anyone here know about such things
or be able to give me more information?

I'd like to go see one of these blockades in action where both sides
are involved; I intend to watch from a distance and try to learn as
much as I can about both sides by observation.  I could read every
single article published about these things, but that would only
vaguely approximate the experience of seeing it with my own eyes, I think.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: (Kevin Darcy) writes supposedly `specious' pro-choice arguments:
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:04:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.123243.749@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>In article <C014os.ID3@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>>
>>
>>You were doing great Kevin, until you bit the bait.  
>[...]
>>In other words Kevin, you've been had.
>>
>Isn't it funny how this pro-forcer, at first glance,
>thought Kevin was one of his own?

If certain pro-choicers were a little more rational in their arguments, I 
wouldn't feel so obligated to argue AGAINST their speciousness, Muriel, and 
run the (fairly-small) risk of getting mistaken for a pro-lifer. This one 
wasn't a big deal anyway -- Mr. Lebow posted another article dated less than 
half an hour later, which acknowledged that I was pro-choice, so what did I 
really lose? 

As a curiosity question, though, with whom does the blame for such misidentifi-
cations ultimately lay? With a) the pro-choicer who cares enough about the 
cause to put specious pro-choice arguments out of their misery, or b) the 
malodorous throng of pro-choicers who will irrationally grab at _any_ argument 
which sounds superficially plausible for use as "ammo" to hurl against their 
favorite pro-life target(s)?

								- Kevin
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: DODie's fear
Date: 4 Jan 93 01:27:39 GMT
	<1993Jan3.183600.13294@ncsu.edu> <1343@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Frustrated Oilers Fans Eponymous

In article <1343@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

   The Reverend Holtsinger must be afraid to post in soc.singles.  

   The only thing that he's not afraid of are religious discussions -
   he's trying to start yet another one in t.a.  Maybe he's afraid
   to post in talk.religion.misc, too.

Have you noticed he *never* posts anything directly following up an article
I direct specifically to him?  He always waits until someone else follows up
on it, and *then* puts his two cents' worth in, or he jumps on something I
say to someone else...the man's got all the character of a dead crab.

--PLH, not affiliated with Whizzo margarine, of course...

--
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 01:34:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.234506.23392@ncar.ucar.edu> 
kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

> *You're* the one who casually asserted that (see above)
> "there is no difference between a late-term fetus and an infant".
> Do you really believe there are no significant distinguishing
> factors between a late-term fetus and an infant?! <y,n>

There are factual differences between a late-term fetus
and a newborn infant, but I have not heard any arguments
from pro-choicers which would give *moral* weight to these
facts.  Thus I conclude that there is no moral difference
between killing a newborn infant and killing a late-term 
fetus.


>-Brian


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: still more of the GROUP, kevin darcy
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:21:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.034949.28039@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.222825.20572@crd.ge.com> keegan@crd.ge.com writes:
>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>|>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>|>>i think you've hit on one of the key reasons that
>>|>>people in several newsgroups poke at kevin. of course,
>>|>>there are others. in fact, shortly after kebbin
>>|>>appeared in alt.flame, a long time ago, i told him that
>>|>>his posting mannerisms were such that, no matter what
>>|>>he said, there would be a lot of people who flamed him.
>>|>>that observation has come to pass far more dramatically
>>|>>than i had imagined.
>>|>>
>>|>The sad thing is that Kevin does post some resonable, intelligent
>>|>articles. But they're buried under mountains of gibberish. If he could
>>|>stop the flow of gibberish, and concentrate on the godo stuff, he'd
>>|>probably find people a lot less likely to flame him constantly.
>>
>>at one point, some years ago, i might have agreed with
>>you. not now though. kebbie is, in his own special way,
>>a net.legend.
>>
>I'm an optimist, and I'd liek to think that all of us are capable of
>overlooking past idiocies if behavior changes. If Kevin stopped
>posting the bilge and stuck strictly to those things he posts
>intelligently on, I would happily change my opinions of him.

Please provide a definition of "bilge" which is distinguishable from
"valid refutations of Mark Cochran's misconceptions, and/or 
demonstrations of Cochran's ignorance and/or irrationality".

I refuse to goose-step to yours or anyone else's intolerant ideology, just to 
be popular with the "in" crowd. I have a duty first and foremost to be true to 
my own beliefs. If you can't deal with that, then tough shit. Just don't go 
around propagandizing that it's the quality of my argumentation that's 
lacking -- it's only my conformity to your (incoherent, ill-formed) point of 
view that's lacking. No great loss.

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53377 talk.politics.misc:65553
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Is Fire Bombing a Legitimate Form of Free Speach.
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:46:43 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <1992Dec29.052441.17244@nwnexus.WA.COM> pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. H
ampe) writes:

>firebombin is a form of free speech
>if and only if flag burning is truely a form of speech.

Say what?  This makes no sense.  Firebombing *my own* house and burning
a flag I have bought and paid for *are* perfectly legitimate forms of
free speech.  Firebombing *your* house or burning a flag *you* own
aren't.  What is your point?

Joe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Darcy and viability as important dividing line.
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:22:56 GMT

In article <C041BC.GtD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu 
(Robert S. Parker) writes:

}However, "viability" does not vary with the situation.  

Every (and that means without exception) MD I have spoken to about the 
subject has wished to clarify the situation before answering the 
question.  Their estimates of viability vary directly with the situation
posed.  

}It is the *earliest*
}time that a prematurely-born child could be "saved" if the best medical care
}is available.  

This is absolutely untrue.  There is no consensus on the best medical
care available, in fact, many physicians may consider local care or
testing the best, when another facility may actually be rated better.

}Just because it would probably die if born "at home" but might
}live and grow if born at a hospital does not mean that it would be viable in
}one case and not in the other.  (I suppose you could define "viability" to
}exclude unusual medical care, so that survivability "at home" would be
}important, in which case it would not have been "viable" at the hospital either
}under that definition.)

In a medical sense the location makes a great deal of difference.  
"Viability" will be at an earlier date in Washington DC than it will
in Scratch Ankle, Arkansas.  "Viability" is one of those pleasantly
vague terms that varies all over the place.  I doubt that you will 
find it defined precisely anywhere.

}When Kevin says he would oppose any restrictions prior to viablitiy but would
}allow restrictions (by majority rule) after that point, he means that he has
}a particular general point in mind that he believes to be the medically
}accepted point of viability.  If you want to push for restrictions prior to
}the point he believes you would first have to convince him that viability is
}actually earlier, or he would oppose you.

I realize that, but I haven't much of an idea as to what he considers
viabile.  It is difficult to describe it as x weeks before birth, as
birth hasn't happened yet.  It is also difficult to describe it as
so many weeks after some event, because we may not know when that
event took place (in the case of pregnancy it is very difficult to
pinpoint exactly when it began.  Oh, I know there are general rules,
and some will claim they knew precisely when conception occured, but
in the general case it is at best an estimate.)

Perhaps Robert Parker could give an exact placement of when 
"viability" occurs, being as how it is (in his opinion) so
medically accepted and invarient.  That way both Kevin and I would 
know exactly when he would or wouldn't oppose restrictions.  

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...