HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 02:19:50 GMT

In article <0eaiZKe00Uh748UVho@andrew.cmu.edu> 
Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> Perhaps this post by Mr. Novak is partially my fault in that I have been
> very slow in writing a thoughtful defence of infanticide.  It takes time
> to to write good arguments rather to post 15 or 20 long, insane rantings
> in a row in the manner Mr. Steve Chaney and some of his frequent
> interlocuters.  I probably will not post anything until next week.

I would like to express my strong interest in responding to your 
defense of infanticide.  I think that Mr. Novak and Ms. Garvin
would probably not like to see your article posted to the net, 
and that's why they have been behaving so badly towards you.  
I do believe that infanticide is wrong under all circumstances, 
but I will examine your arguments very carefully.   

> In particular, why is it good to permit a newborn infant whose short 
> life will be only a painful torment to live and to kill a similar third 
> trimester fetus? 

I believe it's wrong to kill any person simply because they suffer 
pain.  Who are we to decide whether any person is fit to live or
not?  That's a judgement which I can't make for someone else, nor 
would I want anyone else to make that judgement for me.  
 

Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: A DIRECT QUESTION FOR HOLTSINGER...
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 03:16:09 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  <1992Aug23.192025.26041@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug23.183047.19575@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>
> > Since you complain about so many different aspects of abortion
> > rights, are there ANY circumstances under which you would support
> > a woman's right to choose.
>
> I have expressed my support for overturning Roe v. Wade, so that
> the voters of each state can decide the abortion issue.  I also
> oppose the passage of the FOCA, because it would codify Roe into
> national law.  Other than that, I have not yet taken a position
> on legislation that would further restrict abortion beyond the
> permissible restrictions set forth in Roe.

So, take one.

"Please answer the question directly. ... Your last follow-up
didn't address the question which I am asking. A "yes"
or "no" answer would be sufficient."

- Doug Holtsinger, <1992Jul25.201249.26851@ncsu.edu>

"Why can't you answer the question directly? Is it that hard for you?"

-Doug Holtsinger, <1992Jul26.152511.19843@ncsu.edu>

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 22:56:49 GMT

In article <BtqDvA.H6B.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

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

>>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes to Michael Loomis: 

>>>> I would like to express my strong interest in responding to your 
>>>> defense of infanticide.  I think that Mr. Novak and Ms. Garvin
>>>> would probably not like to see your article posted to the net, 
>>>> and that's why they have been behaving so badly towards you.  

>>> Holtsinger, you're a tiresome liar.  I specifically asked Loomis
>>> to post his opinion on infanticide.  You really should learn
>>> to read.  

>> I said that I believed you were behaving badly to Mr. Loomis
>> because you didn't want to see his article posted to the net.
>> I could be wrong about my belief.  

> Your belief is wrong.  I have no way of knowing if you are
> wrong about your belief.

I'm entitled to my opinions.  I still believe that you don't 
want to see Michael Loomis post to the net.   

>> You may have asked his  
>> opinion on infanticide, but I thought you were asking him 
>> to clarify his position so that you would not look foolish 
>> attacking a position which he did not hold.  

> Then you sound rather clueless claiming that I didn't want
> him to post his beliefs, don't you?

I thought you didn't want to see him post an entire article
to the net on the topic of infanticide.  You probably asked 
him for a short opinion of his views on infanticide so that 
you could ridicule him, and discourage him from posting 
a detailed argument which supported infanticide. 

>Susan


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>
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why do they call themselves "pro-life"?
Date: 26 Aug 92 05:44:02 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <adams.714668788@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

	[On third parties...]

	I think that that would be a great idea to open up American
politics some more, but I don't know if the two parties' leaders will
want to let their monopoly end...

/Loren
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:50:54 GMT

In <1992Aug21.022504.11631@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>In article <1992Aug20.173537.3550@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>}In article <1992Aug20.134731.522@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
>}gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>}
>}> The issue is control,  
>}
>}The issue is killing.

>I used to think so too, but all the talk about killing is a means to an end.
>Among all the "pro-life" groups I have come into contact with (a fair number,
>with a fairly wide geographical distribution) I found a few things in common.
>Legislation is always on the agenda.

Ditto for at least some pro-choice organizations, who brag about how
much legislation they've lobbied for, for things like sex education
(including, of course, school-based "reproductive health" clinics)
and also some worthwhile social programs, but never about how much they,
personally, have done for pregnant women.  

	At the pro-choice rally here in Columbia, at the State Capitol,
earlier this year, the state head of Planned Parenthood boasted about how
her organization gives "more affordable abortions, because we are a
nonprofit organization" [although I would class Faye Wattleton's
> $150,000 a year salary as partly profit];  yet she said not a word about
free abortions, not even for the poorest of women.

>Also, so many make exceptions for rape and incest that the "killing"
>angle is somewhat subject to the reason behind the killing.

True.  Killing is not the same thing as murder. 

>No, the issue isn't killing in and of itself, it is something else.  The
>killing plucks some heartstrings, and it attracts some well-meaning
>people, but the reason behind it is elsewhere.  Near as I can figure it
>is control, although I may be wrong, but it sure isn't killing

Why this incessant either/or talk?  Have you been listening to too
many NARAL speakers lately?  

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35064 alt.abortion.inequity:3531
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:40:44 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>Now Gordon, just because Doug Holtsinger ridicules the beliefs of Judaism
>in his .sig doesn't mean that you should stoop to his level.  Besides,
>it's only cannibalism if you really believe in transubstantiation.

Well, for those who believe that an entity can slice off part of itself, 
transform it into the mere body of a human (one that has to go through 
all the pains and agonies of birth, growing up, puberty, adulthood, 
and death) and then in effect have two omnipotent entities that are 
approximately equivalent, but have father/son relationship, but wait, 
let's throw in a third mysterious ethereal entity (because we like threes, 
although with people it is only twos we like) and then still believe 
it to be a single entity, transubstantiation is a minor thing.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion techniques and fetal survival
Summary: DOD makes a fool of himself again
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Date: 4 Sep 92 02:55:22 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Sep2.213555.8517@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

#  "Unlike the plurality, I do not understand these viability
#   testing requirements to conflict with any of the Court's
#   past decisions concerning state regulation of abortion."
#
#   Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. at 525 (1989) 


Holtsinger is citing a sentence from a dissent in the Webster
decision.  I have no idea what he thinks he is proving by
citing this.

#  "It is clear to me that requiring the performance of examinations
#   and tests useful to determining whether a fetus is viable,
#   when viability is possible, and when it would not be medically
#   imprudent to do so, does not impose an undue burden on a 
#   woman's abortion decision.  On this ground alone I would
#   reject the suggestion that [section] 188.029 as interpreted
#   is unconstitutional.  More to the point, however, just as I
#   see no conflict between [section] 188.029 and Colautti or
#   any decision of this Court concerning a state's ability to
#   give effect to its interest in potential life, I see no
#   conflict between [section] 188.029 and the Court's opinion
#   in Akron."
#
#   Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. at 530 (1989) 


Again, this quote is not from the plurality decision.

Further, it in no way contradicts the fact that restrictions
that were not allowed under Colautti are allowed under Webster.
DOD has changed the subject.

I'm not surprised.

Susan

[DOD's anti-Semitic .sig deleted]
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:32:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.183926.21612@ncar.ucar.edu> 
kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

> If I recall correctly, 60 minutes explained how one woman, who needed an
> abortion to save her life, was refused an abortion at several hospitals
> ...
> One might argue that technically the US law grants "abortion on demand",
> but this anecdote illustrates that in reality it can be extremely 
> difficult to obtain an abortion EVEN IN LIFE THREATENING SITUATIONS
> and EVEN IF YOU HAVE LOTS OF MONEY to fly from state to state.  

I think it's rather unscientific to use a single piece of anecdotal
evidence for extrapolating to the typical case.  
 

>-Brian  (Have a nice day)


Doug Holtsinger
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Clinton == !Choice
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:59:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: LLNL

In article <l9ni49INNorq@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:
>	Regardless of his stance on abortion, Clinton does not support an
>American's right to choose.  This is ashame since he claims to be
>"pro-choice."  Well Gov. Clinton, I want to choose my doctor and where my
>kids can go to school.  I do not need the government telling me.

	What???

	Explain this to us all.

	I don't get the doctor part, but the school part?

	I guess that's because BL isn't getting Gov't-funded Fundie schools :-)

>Bryon Lape

	Watch out, he's a Fundie! :-)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:17:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.205019.12578@midway.uchicago.edu> 
eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

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

>> What do people think of the idea?

> I like the idea of a moderated abortion newsgroup, but I think there
> would be lots of problems with it.
> [...]
> 
> How do you define "flame"?  

Any personal attack, insult, or ad hominem attack.  

> Do you disallow articles which make valid 
> points in a nasty manner?  

Yes.

> Do you disallow articles which make valid
> points alongside ad hominem attacks?

Yes.

> Who the heck are you going to get to moderate the sort of *volume*
> we've got?  

We could limit the number of posts that any one person submits on
a daily basis, or limit the number of currently active threads.  
There could be other solutions.  

> I think you'd have to have multiple moderators if you were
> dealing with a large volume.  This of course promptly runs you into
> the problem of moderators with different standards.

I don't think that would be a big problem.  People could post
to talk.abortion if they got their posts rejected. 

> I think it rapidly get to the point of "well,
> our premises are different."  

Perhaps, but I don't necessarily see that as a bad outcome. 

> Advantages of a newsgroup:
> It's easier for new people to find about and enter.

This is the principal reason why I proposed a moderated newsgroup.
I think many people are intimidated by the flames and the insults
which appear on talk.abortion.  By removing the flames, we could
get more people to participate, and they'd bring with them a wider
range of ideas and opinions.  

> Advantages of a mailing list:
>
> It's much easier to get started.

Yeah, but how are you going to promote it?  Besides, I think some
people are wary about getting on mailing lists.  I think a moderated 
newsgroup would attract more new participants than a mailing list. 


>Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 02:22:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep01.232021.12473@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

>rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

>> Only three or four doctors perform late-stage abortions,
>> said Patricia Anderson with the National Abortion Federation.

> Thanks, Russ.  Happy now, Doug?

Here's what the FAQ says about the "National Abortion Federation",
which is the source for your claims:

   National Abortion Federation

   Provides information to hospitals and
   clinics that provide abortion services
   Instructs women on how to choose an
   abortion facility


Sounds like a pro-abortion organization to me. 


>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Daniel Dick and ignorance is bliss!
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:59:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.152728.20037@pony.Ingres.COM> dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick) writes:
#smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
## In article <1992Sep3.002843.17095@pony.Ingres.COM> dan@Ingres.COM
## (Daniel J. Dick) writes as if to illustrate the dangers of posting
## without thinking or even reading.  He started his rant in response to
## Susan Garvin's question: 
## 
## ## How is it that you know what Nyikos's point was, given that you
## ## didn't read his article?
## 
#
#Stephen, if you want to behave like a total jackass and defend your own
#side's misrepresentation, defend someone's childish mockery, and join in
#yourself in more of the same, then I don't need or want your respect or
#care at all about what you have to say.  Let's suffice it to say you're
#in my kill file and you're welcome to place me in yours.

In other words, you can't defend your actions.  That is revealing.

#What I want is an intelligent discussion with people who are willing to
#play by the standard rules of mature discussion--namely that they address
#the arguement of the *opposing* side straight on instead of misrepresenting
#it and mocking the misrepresentation.  Muster up inside yourself the courage
#and honesty to face the issues as they are instead of wasting everybody's
#time with your childish gibberish.  We don't want to hear it.

(How many of you are there?)

Muster up inside yourself the courage and honesty to admit that
the only one who misrepresented Nyikos' comments was Daniel Dick.

#Get to the issues.  Is abortion right or wrong?  Have all arguements been
#presented intelligently and addressed by the opposing side?  Are both sides
#well represented?  Can we read the arguements of both sides here and be
#spared of the childish mockery, blither-blather, and flame wars?  Or have
#all the arguements come to a conclusion that some are unwilling to allow to
#be heard?

You seem to have something in common with a lot of other idiots -
you write a lot of text about how you're only interested in discussing
the issues without discussing any issues.  

[More in the same vein from Dick deleted.  I guess he's allowed
to flame, but no one else is, in his narrow view.  Have fun
talking to yourself, Dick.]

As I said, I'm looking forward to seeing your responses to
Holtsinger (for misrepresenting other people's views), and
to Chaney (for mindlessly flaming.)  I have a feeling that
I'll be looking forward to this for a long time, though, since
you've already proven your hypocrisy once.

Susan
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Doug Holsinger: Anti-Semite?
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:08:17 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

I've seen the following quote in Doug Holtsinger's signature in several
messages, and I've grown more offended by it each time I've seen it.

In article <1992Aug30.232948.17241@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug
Holtsinger) wrote:
> 
>       "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>

Gloria Feldt is accurately summarizing, as I understand it, the Talmudic
point of view regarding personhood.  I see no evidence that, unlike you,
Ms. Feldt is attempting to impose her point of view on anyone else.  Do
you have a specific problem with this, Mr. Holtsinger?  Do you object to
the beliefs or practices of the Jewish religion?  What point are you 
attempting to make with this?

Oh, and for the record, I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this
statement, either.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 16:11:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep2.205322.9187@coopsol.com>  gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>
> >And if you are honest with yourself, I'm sure that you would admit that
> >you support other laws that restrict people's right to practice their
> >beliefs.
>
> Yeah, that human sacrifice stuff is definately out.  Of course, we do
> allow Catholics to practice cannibalism...

Now Gordon, just because Doug Holtsinger ridicules the beliefs of Judaism
in his .sig doesn't mean that you should stoop to his level.  Besides,
it's only cannibalism if you really believe in transubstantiation.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Abstinence is the only answer
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:10:07 GMT

> = (Eric Marsh) writes:
># = Doug Holtsinger:

># Your post was a shameful, transparent attempt to slander Mr. Guerrero.

>Holtsinger looks more like Rasmussen every day. Is there any support out
>there for a Holtsinger boycott?

I'm convinced DJR is part of the Holtsinger phenomenom.

A boycott would be fine with me.  The last one sure drove DJR into a rage, so
count me in :)!

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity