HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: MEET GEORGE TILLER, LATE-TERM ABORTIONIST Part Two
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:50:05 GMT
Keywords: abortion, digoxin, laminaria, pro-death

kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

>>  = vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>> = 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.  

>>> I see your not too proud to go for a few cheap shots.
>>>
>>> (1) Nice innuendo.  (Do you do mathemtical proofs by innuendo too?)
>>>    Care to make (& defend) a CLEAR statement that Dr. Tiller is primarily 
>>>    motivated by money?  <y,n>
>>>
>>> (2) IF the fact the Dr. Tiller charges money for abortions demonstrates
>>>    that he's only in it for the money, THEN what can we conclude when
>>>    Dr.s & hospitals charge even more for live births?  

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

>-Brian


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.

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.  I would think there are
also fewer legal risks because many women would be too embarrassed (rightfully
so) to go public with a lawsuit against the abortionist.

Here is your hypocrisy: You accuse me of using one example to generalize
about ALL doctors, abortionists and real doctors alike, which I clearly did
not do.  It seems to me you are the one generalizing based on statements which
I did not make.

Nice try though.



Edward Simmonds



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- My opinions are my own and if you don't like them I'll just repeat them  -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53682 talk.politics.misc:65863 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11052
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Date: 31 Dec 92 16:00:02 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Dec31.042143.2459@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
> 	Now please explain why it's morally acceptable for actual, undoubted
> human persons to die in the interest of reducing the crime rate, but morally
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> unacceptable for zygotes or fetii to die in the interest of reducing the
                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> rates of mental and physical distress and/or illness among women.  

     "Human persons" should be replaced by "convicted murderers" in your 
appeal -- to make it more specific to the thread.  Second, your use
of "zygotes or fetii" tends to dehumanize the unborn children you're
considering (definition of child is an unborn or recently born person).
Third, using your assumption that abortions reduce the rate of mental
distress among women (which is debatable), would you also assume that
capital punishment reduces the intensity of mental distress among
the families of those murdered?  Would this influence your thoughts
on capital punishment, or does it only apply to abortion?

> 	You're really better off just admitting that you're simply anti-
> abortion and letting it go at that.  Actually claiming to be "pro-life" puts
> you in an awkward position, philosophically.  Only the Catholic Church seems
> to be logically consistent on this matter, since they are opposed to abortion,
> capital punishment, and a host of other life-affecting issues.

     "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" are simply labels that apply to abortion;
we realize they mean "anti-abortion rights" and "pro-abortion rights"
respectively.  The pro-life/pro-capital punishment position is also
logically consistent.  It assumes that there is a right-to-life, but, along
with this right, there is a responsibility not to murder (i.e. to unlawfully
cease another's right-to-life).  If one acts irresponsibly, then he is 
no longer necessarily entitled to his right.

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 19:13:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.040911.4453@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
(Kevin Darcy) writes:

}Ya know, just about every time I _really_ get under your skin...

Note to late arrivals -- Kevin has never gotten under my skin, 
"_really_" or otherwise.   He seems to great pleasure out of thinking
he has, however...

Kevin, you simply told people why you thought a burglary vs abortion 
comparision wasn't valid.  In it, you expressed some misconceptions 
about medical knowledge and what goes on in hospitals.  I agreed the
comparison wasn't very close, but not for the reasons which you 
presented, which, were also in error.

I have little interest in debating the relative safety of abortion
vis-a-vis burglary, in the home, at night.  I have to wonder though
what possible use you could make of your findings, whatever they are...

--
       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...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:00:52 GMT

In <1992Dec28.204506.33939@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In <1992Dec28.032026.15533@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>Disinformation from me? Petey, I insist. Either provide some proof of
>>this "disinformation" or appologise. I'll stand in line behind
>>Adrienne waiting.

>Don't hold your breath - you're also behind me.  I asked him to provide
>some evidence for untrue claims he made about me a while ago.  Naturally,
>he was unable to do so, so he ignored my post.

>>I hope your newsserver is stable...

>Or maybe his newsserver went down again.  Yeah, that's the ticket...

Or I only read a small fraction of posts, even those following up to
me.  Y'see, my account does not include `trn' or `rn', only what
Humphrey calls "(eech) nn".  

Go ahead and accuse me of whining, see if I care.

PJN

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Operation Rescue
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 21:21:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.191755.12514@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:

> The *really* interesting thing is that [Mr. Holtsinger] apparently regards
> firebombs, death threath, vandalism, and couragous acts such as pouring
> gasoline into the ceiling of a clinic and dropping in a match as acts of
> "civil disobedience".  

Gee, I guess some 'civil libertarians' are too dumb to 
recognize a defense of 'free speech'.  The article that
I posted mentioned nothing about firebombs or death
threats, but it did mention several instances where
Operation Rescue had its free speech rights curtailed.
One wonders whether the 'civil libertarians' on this
newsgroup are that in name only. 
 

>The_Doge


Doug Holtsinger
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Birth Positions...
Date: 25 Dec 92 00:50:49 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Dec22.194155.10971@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>I couldn't imagine it myself, but there is alot to be said for the squat
>position over the "flat on back" position.

It's a lot more natural and easy.  Gravity is on your side, and contractions
are more efficient.  'Course, hospitals would rather have you on your back,
like a sick person.  Bleah.

--Teddi
-------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Dean Kaflowitz pretending not to have seen a post by me
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:41:50 GMT

In <1992Dec28.141705.9734@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>In article <34617@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU>, smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>> In article <nyikos.725143125@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes: 
>> >One year after the deed was done?  Even Dean Kaflowitz gave no hint
>> >of extrasensory powers of this magnitude.

>I would be interested in seeing some support or documentation
>from "Doctor" Giggles Nyikos for this remark.

Ask Adrienne for it.  She saw it, because shortly thereafter
she made a joke about releasing everyone from her "thrall"
when she went on vacation.

I suggested that Adrienne's extrasensory powers were greater than
your alleged (by you) powers of precognition, clairvoyance, and
(by implication) telepathy and was keeping you in her thrall.

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Equal protection dead end? 4.
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 13:24:44 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
->>If someone wants to advocate a legislative agenda of restricting the
->>rights of some traditionallly disenfranchised group, I will certainly
->>accuse them of hating this group.  

->It has not been proven that the primary intent of the legislative agenda is
->to restrict the rights of women. The position of pro-life has been, is, and
->probably always will be, to protect fetal life.

you're in a better position than most to address what
is and what is not the primary intent of the
anti-choice wackos, aren't you?
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: the one bad apple theory of pregnancy.
Date: 23 Dec 1992 08:03:36 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Dec23.005514.6333@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1089@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
>sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>> I'm just curious - how many people believe Nyikos' claims about
>> Dr. Tiller?  

>I haven't seen any refutation of his claims thus far.


Since his claims are hot air, I can't imagine why anybody would bother.

Heck, they don't even hang together from the beginning of one paragraph
to another.  I don't even bother reading them anymore, let alone refuting
'em.

Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:01:37 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Dec30.110127.29535@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>In article <C01KMr.uK@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>
>>                                    This is the REAL issue.  The sad part
>>is that the pro-aborts present as fact that thousands of women will surely
>>die if abortion is outlawed.  There is nothing to support this whatsoever.
>>
>Anyone have the Brazil stats archived?

Your wish ... (etc.)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
=======================================================================
#From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
#Newsgroups: talk.abortion
#Subject: Re: Only God Can Help Us!
#Message-ID: <24410@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
#Date: 1 Sep 92 15:14:23 GMT
#References: <1992Aug26.112909.25187@rigel.econ.uga.edu> <nyikos.715296853@milo.m
#Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
#Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD
#Lines: 24

[...]
there are over 200,000 women per year that die in Brazil, a country
of approximately 150 or so million people. Brazil has made abortion
illegal. There are more abortions done in Brazil per year than in the
US, which has a larger population.
[...]
  Bottom of News
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:24:06 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec29.225414.26768@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
#Analogies are not equalities.  An apple is analogous to an orange in
#that both are round.  If we are considering what will happen to each
#when they are placed on an inclined plane, the analogy is proper.  If
#we are considering taste, then the analogy certainly fails.  It is
#important to note that pointing out that apples and oranges differ in
#color does not preclude reaching conclusions based on their analogous
#shapes.

I agree with Woodyatt on this one.  I had mistakenly believed
that you had a point, but I see you're just playing games.  Have
fun.

#We see that simply pointing out differences is not enough to make an
#argument against an analogy.  One must also argue that the differences
#are relevant to the point being made.  (Hsims) has pointed out a
#difference which is probably relevant, but she hasn't made the
#connection explicit.  I hope that she will do so.

You keep denying that you are stupid - perhaps you could prove
it by drawing your own inferences as to why the difference is
relevant.  Otherwise, I'll continue to think that you're an
idiot who thinks he's found a cheap way to get other people to
do his thinking for him.

#Contrary to what Ms. Garvin implies, I do think the drain of the fetus
#on the woman is worth noting.  (Two strikes, Ms. Garvin; one more
#false implication and you're out.)

I'm truly frightened.  What happens when I'm "out"?  Will you
quit making inane replies?

##If you're of average intelligence, you should be able to
##understand that no argument in favor of slavery hinged on
##bodily autonomy.  
#
#Intellectual bullying will not win people to your position, Ms.
#Garvin.  In fact, it will probably drive them away.

I'm sorry - I usually believe people are telling the truth unless
I see evidence to the contrary.  You had stated that you believed
that abortion was a personal decision.  I saw no need to try to
convince you to share my position.  I had no idea you were lying.

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Apologies to Garvin, Keegan, clueless newbies, and Regard
Organization: Egomaniacs Anonymous
	<1992Dec29.201128.9065@jetsun.weitek.COM>
	<PATRICK.92Dec30135449@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
	<1992Dec30.220757.20670@jetsun.weitek.COM>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:29:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.220757.20670@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:

   In article <PATRICK.92Dec30135449@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
 >In article <1992Dec29.201128.9065@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
 >
 >   In article <PATRICK.92Dec29102508@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
 >   >In article <nyikos.725578290@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
 >   >
 >   >   Now let's see whether Adrienne is ... er ... woman enough to apologize
 >   >   for something in her follow-up that was, if anything, even more likely
 >   >   to confuse the same clueless newbies.
 >
 >  >Cut the crap about the "clueless newbies" -- you obviously like having a few
 >  >of them around when it suits your purposes.  You just don't have the balls
 >  >of a gnat, which is about all that would be required to make a sincere
 >  >apology.  You're about as sincere as Joe Isuzu, in this one.
 >
 >   Actually, I like his problem with Adrienne's gender there. A little sexism
 >   slipping from beneath the Freudian slip? I've got a teddy that would look
 >   just cuddly on old Peter, Pumpkin Eater.
 >
 >In that case, go for it -- but I *don't* want to see the pictures.  :-)


   Aah! You're no fun. I think he would look just adorable in a teddy, with
   foam breasts, and a big, fat you know what inserted you know where. :-)

Okay, okay -- you've convinced me.  You handle the insertion of the object,
and I can provide the outfit.  (After all, Dale Ann the Devious won't mind
one of hers being put to use in such a worthy cause. :-)

   Sigh. I must be sexually deprived again. I keep fantasizing about tying up
   and spanking people...

Well, don't look at *me*, just because I'm only two-thirds as far from you
as Doctor Giggles is...:-)


--PLH, US 59 to I-20, hang a right, and boogie...

--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 23 Dec 92 17:07:03 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion,talk.religion
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Dec23.051047.18463@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>As for the infanticide bullshit: knock it off.  You know it's
>dishonest and it clearly is nothing more than petty name calling.  By
>continuing to repeat the same old slanders you're only damaging
>yourself and your cause.
>

  Christ on a stick, enough already!  Please edit your followup
  line and get this the hell out of alt.atheism.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Subject: Re: (Kevin Darcy) writes supposedly `specious' pro-choice arguments:
Organization: NRL
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:52:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.123243.749@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel 
Nelson) writes:

(Referring to my comments to Kevin)

> Isn't it funny how this pro-forcer, at first glance,
> thought Kevin was one of his own?
> 
> muriel

I see this is kind of a game for you, Muriel.  Actually I was specifically adressing Kevin's apparent naivite with regard to the motives behind the 'specious' arguments he listed.  I, unlike, you do not first have to examine the source of truth before I can recognize it.  Kevin appears to be a more couragous pro-abort than most.  He's willing to examine, albeit gingerly, the nature of the pro-abortion ideology.

- Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 01:02:25 GMT

In article <PATRICK.93Jan3183146@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1993Jan3.221447.8469@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>   In article <1993Jan3.183600.13294@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>   [Entire totally non-abortion related article deleted]
>
>   DODie, what the hell is this crap?
>   Why do you find it necessary to bring your religious arguments from
>   soc.singles to t.a? Neither of them is appropriate, but if that
>   concept is beyond the ability of your feeble mind to grasp, then at
>   least leave the dammed thing in the group where it started.
>   Do you practice being this stooopid, or were you born this way?
>
>I'd say he puts in quite a bit of practice at it -- for a good example, try
>fingering his account at eceyv some time.  Really cute .plan, if you ask me.
>(Not quite the artwork of Chaney's, but you can tell he exercised his single
>neuron to the limits in producing it...:-)
>
Well, I'm sure he practices, but don't you think it takes a certain
inborn (or more correctly, inbred) trait to be capable of such
astounding feats of stupidity?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 20:03:42 GMT

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>He seems to ignore arguments about bodily autonomy.

I am truly at a loss to understand why this would be said.  Did I not
just acknowledge an argument about bodily autonomy?  I wrote:

     In other words, we can outlaw slavery without infringing on the
     rights of the slave owner, while outlawing abortion may subject
     women to unwanted health problems.  I think (Hsims) makes an
     argument that may head in the right direction, though one has to
     weed through much superfluous material to find it.

>Perhaps he equates women's bodies with plots of land...

This rediculous suggestion does not even warrant a response.

>Is Skinner really unable to understand that the analogy breaks
>down because fetuses reside inside women's bodies and slaves
>do not?

Whether I am able to understand this I know not, and I shall not find
out here if posters continue to ask intellectually arrogant questions
instead of making arguments that might clarify their positions.


                                  Gregg Skinner



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh