HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Nyikos Goes Under (WAS Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Followup-To: talk.abortion 
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 00:01:45 GMT


[Peter mentioned that t.r people don't want cross-posts, and I'd like to
apologize for this one.  It' short, simple, and followups have been set
back to t.a, so hopefully you won't be seeing too much of it.  Sorry.]

In article <nyikos.715613094@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

[Peter apologizes, and attempts to show how this stupid thing is "revelant" to
both t.a, and t.r.  Who does he think he is kidding?  And what the hell does
"forced abortion" have to do with Peter trying to smear "Pro-Choicers" as evil
satanic voodoo docters anyway?]

>
>>>> >What ARE you going on about?  How many women decide at the last moment
>>>> >that they have changed their mind and are forcibly held to the table
>>>> >while the doctor performs the abortion?
>
>A scenario reminiscent of some rapes.  I believe it is generally the case
>that the woman has the right to change her mind at any point before
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>intercourse, and that if the man does not comply, it is rape.
^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sorry, Peter, but you lose.  The woman (and the man involved) have the right
to say, "No", or "Stop" AT ANY TIME.  I almost feel sorry for a man who thinks
that just becuase he and his ___ are having intercourse that she doesn't have
the right to say no.
--
=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???=
=I am not "pro-life"... - Doug Holtsinger in article                          =
=                                          <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu>   =
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why there are a variety of subjects and threads
Date: 9 Sep 1992 18:11:55 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


   As a liberal, I resent the suggestion that I eat scum by using
suction.  I have always eaten scum with chopsticks as befitting a
fuzzy thinking, commie, one-world mentality!
-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson's rant letter
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 00:48:15 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)

In article <nyikos.715735129@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <1992Sep1.175955.24063@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
#
#
##	For those of you (like Mr. Nyikos) who seem reluctant to accept just
##how loony Pat Robertson has become, here's the AP report on his charming
##little letter/plea for $$, lifted from talk.politics.misc:
#
#HOLD IT!  HOLD IT!  I thought this was all about Pat Buchannan.  


Did you?

"Robertson is much too astute to make blanket statements
like the one you say he suggested."
 - Peter Nyikos <nyikos.715285141@milo.math.scarolina.edu>


"Hmmm.  Maybe I gave Robertson more credit than he deserves."
Peter Nyikos - <nyikos.715468090@milo.math.scarolina.edu>

#What's
#Pat Robertson doing, plagiarizing his lines?????

[article deleted]

#Or is it Pat Buchannan plagiarizing Pat Robertson?

Or is Nyikos losing his mind?

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Peter, do you even know how to READ? (Was: 3 docs in a 3-way).
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 12 Sep 92 22:00:45 GMT

In <18novvINN6jc@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <nyikos.716076849@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>Now that the post has been repeated on the "FOCA : and I quote" thread
>>by Dan King, no thanks to you, you get to read my opinion about it.
>>Enjoy.

>I did.  I notice you spend considerable keyboardtime coming up with specula-
>tive defenses for this 'poor fellow' who swore to God or Allah that he'd
>kill a woman who didn't have enough respect for him.

What a grotesque distortion.

Did you also read the part where I say you seem to 
 have shown no signs of growing
as a human being in the past 7 years?  Your distortion reinforces this
impression.

>Kinda makes me *glad* you have decided I'm not on your list of 'compassionate'
>people, because I wouldn't like the company, or the definition.

>Adrienne Regard

I'm beginning to hatch a bit of speculation, not backed up yet by any solid
facts, mind you, that just as Dennis Hall is alleged to be a fictional name
of Steve Chaney, just so   Adrienne Regard      is a fictional name for
                            drieux
or vice versa.  

So maybe I should cross one of you off my list of people, never mind the
`compassionate' bit.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 07:03:06 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa

<Bu1EML.E6o@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
><1992Sep3.193512.23785@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep1.172929.12103@advtech.uswest.com>
>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>>I would be much happier with a constitutional amendment that requires
>>>the consent of the father before abortion is allowed.
>>
>>Sure.  And I'd be happy with a constitutional amendment that requires
>>every male child to undergo a vascectomy at 12.  They could only reverse
>>it (or attempt to reverse it) with written permission of their wife.
>>
>>How do you like those apples?  You want control over other people's
>>lives, then I'll have control over yours.
>
>With this absurd escalation, you would of course accept tubal ligation
>for girls at 12, reversible only by permission of a husband.  Is that 
>really the equivalent of consent for abortion?

Pretty close.  I agree pretty much with Jennifer here.  If you are going
to legislate that the state controls a woman's womb then you had better be
prepared to have your testicles controlled by the state too.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
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
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Oh, so Rush ISN'T serious, eh, Astro Boy?
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:29:03 GMT

In article <BuD0Eu.nE.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.040713.32172@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>#In  <1992Sep10.004307.17436@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>##
>## I've run you over with facts. Take the Gloria Feldt debate.
>## You're about to be majorly embarrassed by my facts and your lies.
>#
>#Yes, like your "fact" that Margaret Sanger died of an illegal abortion
>#(at age 89???).  We're still reeling from the shock of that one.  (Or is
>#that shaking with laughter?)
>
>Now, Larry, she was only 83.  (Dennis will probably argue that those
>six years *matter.*)  I don't think that anyone has explained the
>facts of life to the little boy.

I asked the library to see if they can find that News & Review issue
and I talked to the newspaper staff here in Sacto, too. When it comes
in, I'll see about making a .gif out of it and seing just how much
embarrassment "red" we can see on your face after that. 

>(I'm still amused that POC thinks that the 1st Ammendment prohibits
>Ms. Feldt from practicing her religion.)

No. It only prohibits her from slamming her RELIGION into POLITICS. 


=============================================================================
>##       "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>
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Date: 11 Sep 92 02:51:25 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes to nyikos:
-> ("We're not misogynists," they say, while insisting
-> that women are only entitled to a subset of rights
-> that men enjoy.)

even more hypocritical, one control freak even posted
some speculation that women would be well advised to
give up some reproductive rights less more would be
taken from them than they might give up.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: More Specious Unsubstantiated LIES from Nyikos
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:22:20 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

Look, people.  Just because Nyikos is anti-choice and generally clueless about
abortion doesn't mean EVERYTHING he writes is NECESSARILY wrong.  THINK and
do some research YOURSELF before you flame.

> tanj
>> Nyikos

>>Fact: some Planned Parenthood clinics do not use anesthesia.

>Substantiate this so-called fact.  Or retract it.
>My guess is that all you have is whole-cloth "testimony" again.

This "so-called fact" is true, unless PP has some arbitrary internal rule
requiring anesthesia.  When I had my abortion, anesthesia was NOT required,
although it was strongly suggested.

-- 
I feel like a gay man trapped inside a woman's body.

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson's rant letter
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:11:10 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu

From article <Bu6qIB.3AI.2@cs.cmu.edu>, by garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):
> In article kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
> 
> [Nyikos' boo-boo deleted]
> 
> #I love you, Susan.  Let's run away and have 2.4 kids together.  I'll bring
> #the cat.
> 
> 
> I love you, too, Keith.  I'm all packed.  I'll bring the garage
> door opener.
> 
> (I guess Suzanne won't see this article, will she?)


Why not?


> Susan

Suzanne.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36489 alt.abortion.inequity:3730
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Fun things to do with pro-lifers...
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 02:13:32 GMT

From article <18j0o4INN2h1@gilligan.East.Sun.COM>, by mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori):
> 
> Out where I live, we have a certain group of pro-lifers that regularly
> marches on a clinic in one of the local doctor's office complexes. The
> clinic is not actually near the road, but they make sure and get real
> close to the main drag, so you can see their "resolve".

The odds are, the trespassing laws were what where _really_ keeping
the majority of the demonstrators out of the privately owned parking
lot.

Suzanne Forgach
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36622 alt.abortion.inequity:3773
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:07:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes ...
>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>If the Freedom of Choice Act 'simply prevents the state from restricting
>>adult females from aborting pre-viable fetuses' then it says that a
>>pre-viable fetus is not human, and has not human rights.
>>
>>To make it really clear, it enforces the belief that a fetus is not
>>human.
>
>No it does not.  It denies the fetus LEGAL protection, but enforces no
>belief.  There is NO required or forced abortions, and no required of
>forced belief.   Everyone gets to <<GASP>> decide for themselves! 

But Mr. Stevens doesn't believe himself that a fetus is a human being 
with equivalent rights to a newborn baby.  After all, he is apparently
willing to kill said fetus should it's father have commited the crime 
of rape.  I don't know what he's fussing about, unless he's just trying
to punish women for having sex.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Response to Propeller Head's Pathetic Attempts at Flamage
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:34:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.123653.23562@rigel.econ.uga.edu>, mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>Steve Chaney, the child who think's he's a Borg.

If he really wants to be a Borg, he ought to at least have a Borg name --
Ineptus ought to be just about right for the li'l sprat...:-)

--PLH (screw the .sig, I'm a happy guy.)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: control
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:13:23 GMT


In article <nyikos.716064418@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu writes:
|Sorry, I'll just have to play dumb a little longer until we
|connect.  It appears to me that you, like the adolescents on the
|Oprah Winfrey show, would much prefer to stop a pregnancy
|already started, than to prevent one from happening in the first
|place.  If this is not your meaning, why are you so fond of
|statements like "Contraceptionn is nnot ann alternnative to
|abortionn?"

Gosh, Nyikos, why don't you name for me a contraceptive
that's 100% effective?  That is, a contraceptive that will
prevent pregnancy for sexually active het women 100% of the
time.  Can you name one?

Here's a free clue for you:  Until women have such a
contraceptive, unwanted pregnancies are going to exist.
Even among women who use contraception.  Some of those women
are going to want abortion IN ADDITION TO contraception.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: The mother of all Sonogram wars
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:01:08 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

Suzanne, you are in rare form today.

> bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean):

>> What's with the sonogram reference?  Are sonograms supposed to
>> change the way pro-choicers think?  

> Not at all.  They're supposed to change the way you feel.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Suzanne.  What with my cold and
the abnormally high pollen count, I've been feeling downright
crappy these past few hours.

Think I'll head for the doctor's office and have a sonogram.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:23:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.154132.1809@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Sep11.123957.2004@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> > You claim that if Gloria Feldt supports the Freedom of Choice
> > Act, and because she bases her reasoning about abortion
> > partly on religious views, she is trying to make her religion
> > the law of the land.  But the Freedom of Choice Act is not
> > a religious law, nor is it based on religious law, and in
> > fact, from what you quote her as saying about her religious
> > beliefs, the Freedom of Choice Act runs counter to them.
> 
> Fine, then let's apply your reasoning to the pro-life side.
> A pro-lifer who bases their reasoning about abortion partly
> on religious views and who supports the Human Life Amendment
> is not attempting to make their personal religious views
> the law of the land, according to Dean Kaflowitz.  I'll
> remember your reasoning the next Steve Novak or some other 
> rabid pro-abortionist spouts off about "religious fundies" 
> forcing their religious views on others.  I'll remind them
> that Dean Kaflowitz believes that these people are not
> forcing their religious views on others. 

Gee, if I were Doug Holtsinger I would be saying something
about meandering off the subject, but then I don't indulge
in lies, misquotes, out-of-context quotes, and other deceptive
tactics.  But all that aside for the moment...

I don't recall where I ever said people whose views are based
on their religion shouldn't be allowed to attempt to enforce
their religion through law.  I don't think the law should enforce
anyone's religious principles if those principles are
entirely religious and without any application for the
common good.  For example, I loathe Sunday Blue Laws.  Also,
I would certainly be opposed to any attempts to outlaw the
consumption of pork, although such consumption violates the
laws of both Judaism and Islam.

Very queer of you this time, Doug, trying to somehow make me
responsible for the views of Steve Novak.  I agree with
Steve about the dangers of the fundies.  I think they are a
serious threat to religious and secular freedom in this
country.  I don't think Ms Feldt's personal views were intended
as a blueprint for a law.  In fact, I seriously doubt that
the Freedom of Choice Act resembles the principles to
which she adheres except in a some, though possibly significant,
areas.  But then we don't know.  The whole Freedom of Choice
Act discussion was the product of your own speculation, and
was dragged in to make some bizarre point about Ms Feldt
seeking to make her religious views on abortion the law of
the land.  Curiously, as you have since noted, you had quoted
her only in part and when you finally published a more
complete version of the quote we discovered that her view
was only partly based on her religious perspective.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Misogynist Dream?
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:37:14 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

     This probably has little relevance to any sort of ongoing discussion
here, but I had a perplexing sort of dream last night, and I thought
maybe y'all could do some amateur psychoanalysis of it:

     I'm reading this book, and it asks a question something along
the lines of "Abortion is to a woman, as ______ is to a dog."
The book had a picture of a Basset Hound as a visual aid...
The book went on to ask questions about whether or not it's
alright to "abort" babies, or toddlers, or 12 year old geeks
(the visual aid here was a short skinny blonde kid with glasses
twice as wide as his face who truly annoyed his brother with
incessant whinings (his name was Elmo)).

     I thought about it for awhile, and what began to alarm me
was that somehow I had made a comparison between women and dogs...
Then again I had recently had a discussion of how "all men are pigs,"
ergo "all women are bitches"...  Misogyny ignored though, what was
I expecting to fit in the blank anyway?  Why aren't there dog 
abortions?  If there are, are they truly as significant to the dog
as they are to the woman who aborts?  My guess would be the dog
would care more about the absence of her supperdish...  Hmmmm.

     And what about that reduction to the absurd bit with Elmo?
It just kinda stuck in my mind as far as dreams go, so I thought
I'd spew forth some details...

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:28:19 GMT

mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
> eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:

>> For those of you who are christians and also want to make abortion illegal
>> in some/most/all cases, on what do you base this position exactly?

>> Just curious...

[--long post explaining pro-life stance deleted--]

I have no problem with your reasons for being against abortion, Stokes, but
I didn't see any compelling reasons for legislating against abortion.  But
here's something I definitely take issue with:

> I tried to give my reasoning for being pro-life without going into the
> Biblical side of it.  If you research it with an open mind, you'll find the 
> Bible (therefore God) solidly pro-life.  If you need any help, let me know.

To the best of my knowledge, the God of the Bible said nothing about abortion,
except for Numbers 5:12-31, where He actually appears to be pro-forced-abortion.
(Keep in mind that the pro-forced-abortion stance is as repugnant to pro-
choicers as pro-forced-pregnancy.)

There are also numerous instances where God directs the Israelites to
mercilessly slaughter members of the heathen tribes that surround them. 
This doesn't sound like a pro-life God to me.

I should warn you that there have been lots of instances where pro-lifers have
attempted to use the Bible to support their positions.  It hasn't worked.
You're certainly welcome to try, though.  Helpful hint: stay away from Psalm
139, Jeremiah 1:5 and Deuteronomy (forgot the chapter and verse).  Try to be
original! :-)

Btw, I'm a pro-choice Christian, but I have heretical tendencies. :-)


-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.singles,talk.bizarre