HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: List of unsubstantiated accusations by Susan Garvin
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:23:42 GMT

Susan, I hope I'm not spoiling your fun of refuting this weenie...

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

> List of unsubstantiated accusations by Susan Garvin against me:
> a) Unsubstantiated accusation that I had been making up sources 
>    for an article that Susan Garvin had never seen.

We're also accusing the sun of being likely to rise in the east tomorrow,
DearOldDoug.

> b) Unsubstantiated accusation that I had doctored a quote from a 
>    Planned Parenthood official from an article that had been
>    posted to the net. 
> c) Unsubstantiated accusation that I have willfully lied on 
>    talk.abortion.

They say the memory is the first to go, eh, DearOldDoug?  _I_ substantiated
a few of your lies last week.

> d) Unsubstantiated accusation that I had changed the meaning
>    of a quote from a Georgetown University law professor. 

If I paid closer attention to your doings, DearOldDoug, I'd be able to respond
to (b) and (d) as well.  Frankly, my threshold for dealing with tedium is low.

I notice that a lot of posters in the alt.politics* heirarchy are not buying
your hogwash either.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:27:06 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

>In article <1992Aug21.185107.9237@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

> Cathi, ALL pro-choicers lie to themselves, at least a little bit, about
> what abortion actually IS.

You know, Suxie, it's hard to lie to yourself about it when you've actually
had one.

Talk about projection: "I, Suzanne, lie to myself, therefore everyone else
must do it too."

Sheesh.

-- 
"Republicans understand the importance of the bondage between parent and
child." - Dan Quayle at a GOP rally in Sept. '88 in Springfield, Illinois

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 23:16:25 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  <1992Sep3.141838.25842@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
> In article <1992Sep01.191402.16457@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
> >(Abortion, by definition, is *not* murder, since murder refers to unlawful
> >killing, and abortion is legal.)
>
> Murder doe NOT just refer to unlawful killing, it also refers to unjust
> (immoral) killing.

Not according to any of my dictionaries.

> >And it's not enforcing beliefs, any more than the killing of cattle
> >being legal enforcing beliefs on those believe cattle to be holy.
>
> Unless it happens to be MY cow you are killing.

If it's yours, you can do with it what you want.

> >They are still free to believe any way they like; what they are not free
> >to do is act on those beliefs in such a way as to violate the rights
> >of other people.
>
> Correct.  So what do you call it when a woman carrying my child kills it?

I'd call it a tragedy if she accidentally dropped the kid, or murder if
she tossed it down the stairs on purpose.  But that's getting away from
the question of abortion...

> >I assume this is simply emotional rhetoric, and you realize that fathers
> >are *not* having abortions, forced or not.  If not, you need to take a
> >biology course...
>
> This is not emotional rhetoric.  It is truth.  Abortion is not just what
> is done to the mother, it is also what is done to the baby, and the
> father.

Abortion is getting the zygote, embryo, or fetus out of the woman.
I've never seen any definition that mentions the sperm donor.

> If I am not having an abortion, then how come I'm suddenly no longer
> a father afterwards?

You were an expectant father beforehand; you don't expect much afterwards.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion techniques and fetal survival
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:28:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep01.184825.34350@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

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

>> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>>> The statement that the states *may* enact legislation is correct.  The
>>> Pennsylvania legislation was struck down in Colautti v. Franklin for
>>> vagueness, *not* because the Supreme Court ruled that the states may
>>> not enact such legislation.

>> The states may not enforce legislation which would require the physician
>> to employ the abortion technique which would most likely result in
>> a fetus aborted alive, since that type of legislation was struck 
>> down in Colautti v. Franklin.

> This statement is not correct.

Yes, it is correct. 

> How do you conclude one from the other, when you admit that the
> legislation was struck down for vagueness, and is therefore totally
> irrelevant to the question?  

It doesn't matter whether the legislation was struck down for
reasons of vagueness,  or for some other reason.  The fact remains
the states may not enforce legislation which would require the physician
to employ the abortion technique which would most likely result in
a fetus aborted alive, since that type of legislation was struck 
down in Colautti v. Franklin.

> The legislation struck down in Colautti v. Franklin was a Pennsylvania
> law; since then Pennsylvania has passed new abortion restrictions.  These
> were challenged before the Supreme Court.  Some parts were struck down,
> but the requirement that two doctors be present, one just for the fetus,
> and similar provisions also relating to fetal survival in third-trimester
> abortions were *not* struck down.

So what?  Colautti v. Franklin has not been overturned in any
Supreme Court decision.  

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


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>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 03:02:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.121232.13337@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.202157.23639@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>> > In article <BsxsG4.MuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu writes:
>> > |Sorry Adrienne but again this is simple.  If one believes that
>> > |the fetus is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right
>> > |to life takes precedence over other rights.  It isn't that the
>> > |woman does not have rights it is that they are subservient to
>> > |the right to life of the fetus.
>> 
>>   The fallacy here, of course, is that a person does not have a
>> right to life; a person has the right to the *pursuit* of life...
>
>Damn.  I have got to get a copy of that Constitution everyone else
>is using.  I keep seeing people talk about the "right to life"
>as it were a constitutional statement, and then I go home and
>check my copies of the Constitution and there's nothing in there
>about a right to life.  When I read Mr Thomas' statement, I figured
>I had been looking for it in he wrong place or something, so I
>went home again and looked around for a right to pursue life.
>Still couldn't find it.  Could someone please let me know where
>I can get a copy of the Constitution with the right to life or
>right to pursue life bits?  I must have a Bowdlerized version.

Sarcasm is cheap. Try looking up the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, 
especially the part about not depriving citizens of life without Due Process.
Try reading some legal literature to discover that the term "Due Process"
has both a procedural aspect (right to trial, etc.) and a substantive aspect.
Read further to discover that substantive Due Process protects fundamental
rights, such as the right to life, from deprivations unless the state can
demonstrate a "compelling interest" in doing so.

Upon achieving this enlightenment, your craving to use sarcasm will no doubt 
evaporate.

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34678 alt.flame:12520 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:367
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: getting a date ii (was Re: Susan Garvin, religious bigot (was Re: Doug Holsinger: Anti-Semite?)
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:02:43 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Followup-To: alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

the chaneyhall thing posting as
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

-> [...] asshole [...] I don't give a shit. No one gives a
-> shit [...] you stupid ignoramous sphincter vixen
[...] STUPID [...] asshole [...] sphincter-head bitch

did you and kebbie read the same book on how to get a
date?

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: You be the Judge!
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:16:08 GMT

In <1992Aug29.030548.3002@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:


>Let's leave the desert isle scene a minute...journey closer to home...

>There is a woman tried and convicted of murder, and awaiting execution.
>Her appeals have all been exhausted, and she is due to die soon.
>She is, however, pregnant, having been raped by her father who is
>a prison guard.  The pregnancy itself is also life threatening, that is,
>it may kill her before the gas chamber does.  She requests an abortion.
>(oh yeah, she is exactly between the second and third trimester, as far
>as we can tell)

>Should she get it?  Who pays for it?

>(You can't stay her execution, she's exhausted all the appeals.  
>What do you decide is moral in this bizarre situation, and why?)

I assume "soon" means in more than three months, since most states (alas,
not all) require that a pregnancy be brought to term before execution, and
even in places where it is not required, it would be a politically suicidal
governor that does not stay the execution that long.

So.  You really know how to load the dice in your questions.  But my 
position should be clear from my earlier posts.  Now that she is at this 
stage, we have a situation where
a C-section is possible, or induced labor, and a darn good chance, with
modern techniques, of the baby surviving.  Go with it, and be sure to 
have an incubator, etc. ready to help the baby.

(Oh, did you think I would want the baby killed because it is carrying all
those defective genes?  Sorry, a lot of that antisocial behavior could be
environmental, not hereditary.)

Peter Ny.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 18:43:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

cswicego@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Cynthia Swicegood) writes ...
>Abortions are wrong!  There's no difference between a fetus, a baby, and
>an adult, these are just different steps in human development.  People
>say that a fetus isn't anything because it can't survive outside the
>womb, well a baby already born can't survive outside the womb either
>unless someone takes care of him/her and feeds him/her.  You're talking
>about human life, no matter what stage it's at and it's wrong to kill.
>Plain and simple.

Ah yes, "plain and simple", as if that could be used to describe any aspect
at all of the world.  2+2=4 and that's that.  No need to concern oneself
with irrelevancies like algebra, calculus, or (heaven forbid) Goedel.

So then, why should I give credence to anyone who can't tell the difference
between an embryo, a fetus, a baby, and an adult?  And whether it is or
isn't inside a womb is, in the end, exactly what the discussion is about.
It is not about "killing babies", it is not about what a person is, it is
about whether a woman (a "human life") has the right to remove a embryo/fetus
from her body.

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.censorship
From: aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault)
Subject: Re: Operation Rescue
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
	<1992Sep2.014357.12800@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:35:44 GMT

   I wrote:

   >I would say that the majority of these protests are peaceful, and not
                         ^^^^^^^^ 

I said "majority" here, and I say that from my own experience.  Yes, I
will admit that there are exceptions, and I don't condone the examples
of violence you are bringing up.

But are you saying that there are no examples of violence from
pro-abortion people at protests like this?  Surely there are examples
like this on both sides.   Would you like to dig up documentation on the
examples of violence by pro-abortion people also?   Why not?

I would ask:  What percentage of all protests do these examples of
violence really represent?   (On either side?)

--
Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, aultj@rpi.edu    <><
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:11:02 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>> South Carolina requires abortionists to report to police all
>> alleged incest cases brought to them.  Anyone want to guess
>> how often this law is enforced?

Funny thing.  Minnesota has a law requiring _doctors_ to report
all suspected cases of child abuse, sexual and otherwise.  Are
you sure that the SC laws applies _only_ to abortionists, not to
_all_ medical professionals?

> Wild speculation is really your specialty, but I'll take a guess.
> 100% of the time.

> What do I win?  :-)

Maybe a Care Bear?

-- 
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
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33958 alt.politics.clinton:3430 alt.politics.bush:3405
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade permits the purposeful killing of viable fetuses
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 29 Aug 92 06:57:48 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Aug28.195734.19979@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>The following analysis of Roe v. Wade, written before the Court's 
>decision in Colautti v. Franklin, suggests that Roe v. Wade permits 
>a woman to have the physician purposely kill a viable fetus during
>an abortion procedure.  


The following quote from Roe refutes both the claim that Holtsinger
makes above as well as his endless claims about Roe granting
the right to "abortion on demand throughout pregnancy."

"On the basis of elements such as these, appellants and some *amici* 
argue that a woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to 
terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for 
whatever reasons she alone chooses.  With this we do not agree.
Appellants' arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in 
regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to 
support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, is 
unpersuasive.  The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also 
acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right 
is appropriate.  As noted above, a state may properly assert important 
interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and 
in protecting potential life.  At some point in pregnancy, these 
respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain 
regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision.  The 
privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute.  In 
fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some *amici* that 
one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a 
close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the 
Court's decisions.  The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited 
right of this kind in the past. [citations omitted]"


I thank greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) for typing
this in.   

Susan
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fodder for DOD's .sig (Was: Pro-Choice Challenge)
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:31:01 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> = Doug Holtsinger writes:

>>      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>> that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>> we want to be precise)..."
>>   -- Gloria Feldt,
>>      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona
>>  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
>     -- dking@nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)  <Insert header info here>
>     -- gjh@virginia.edu (Galen Hekhuis)
>     -- chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) <Insert header info here>

>What is it about Judaism that bothers you, Doug?

Well, it shouldn't be surprising, this Rasmussenesque raving: DJR...er,
Doug, supposedly an atheist, defends christianity like it was his *Mother*
(heh heh), yet blatantly spews his anti_Semitism.

Notice Holtsinger, allegedly an atheist, has been too chicken to comment on
Bush's claim that "atheists shouldn't even be considered citizens, or
patriots".  

BTW, Doogie...I'd be proud to be part of your .sig.

I disagree with Susan Garvin that _not_ requesting to be part of DOD's
.sig is a sign of anti-Semitism, for these reasons:

(1) Who gives any _real_ weight to the Doltmeister ANYway?

(2) How is anyone supposed to know that [a] Gloria Feldt is Jewish, or [b]
that her comments indicate a religious belief?  I didn't until reading this
group.

(3) Many people don't even pay attention to the Doltster these days (and
those of us that do use him for humor, as a Human Dartboard).

I sense HUGE upcoming arguments with Susan, since this is maybe the
*second time* in 3 years that I haven't just nodded my head in appreciation
of her posts :).

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Illegal abortions (was Re: Only God Can Help Us!
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:47:52 GMT

In article <24410@oasys.dt.navy.mil> 
bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>> Not per year, it does not.  You have to go back to the 1940's before
>> penicillin to have more than 1,000 women dying of abortion--and even
>> then it was death from spontaneous and induced abortion and "abortion
>> from unknown causes" lumped together.

> Nyikos proves again that he is completely clueless. Peter (very appropiate)
> 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. 

The Centers for Disease Control has reported that 39 women died from 
illegal abortions in 1972, the year before the Supreme Court legalized 
abortion with its Roe v. Wade decision. 


> There are more abortions done in Brazil per year than in the
> US, which has a larger population. 

I may be wrong, but I think Brazil has very tight restrictions on the
availability of contraceptives. 


>Ron


Doug Holtsinger
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
Keywords: puberty, surrealistic
Date: 23 Aug 92 21:05:16 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <nyikos.714437732@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

}BTW, networkers, especially Galen Hekhuis...

Thanks, but you must have me confused with someone who actually knows 
something.  That's a mistake the University of Virginia makes too...

I know a lot of ways to read CP/M formats, and am fairly clever with
MS-DOS (and its clones) and beginning to understand the ways to 
get from IBM to Macs and visa versa, but I just barely handle 
stuff on the big machines.  "This object is much smaller than it
appears to be..."

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34949 alt.abortion.inequity:3498