HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: Saturnalia I: "She shoulda kept her legs crossed"
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 22:05:05 GMT

>In <34529@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>>In article <nyikos.724627328@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) post the latest in what I
>>describe as the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.  In it, the
>>a legislative agenda restricting the rights of women is disguised as a
>>response to a public health crisis.  The public health concerns
>>revolve around bad performance by an abortion provider.  This is the
>>one bad apple that leads by some incomprehensible leap of fetus
>>fanatic logic to a legislative agenda of forced pregnancy.

>To date, I have posted concerning FIVE  bad apples, on three of them
>extensively, with information from PRIMARY sources, including in one
>case the victimized woman herself, testifying before the South Carolina
>State Senate Judiciary Committee.  TWO of these abortion providers
>are right in the Columbia area, and as I said in "Meet Ismail Elguindi,
>Abortionist," the two together account for almost exactly half of the
>5000+ abortions reported in the Columbia area in 1990, the last year
>in which Elguindi did not have his license suspended for some reason
>or other.

Peter,
There are more than FIVE bad apples being sued or investigated for botched
births in California alone. By your logic, we should outlaw birth.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Operation Rescue
Keywords: civil rights activists 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 18:34:29 GMT

In article <1162@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> Of course, I didn't say that illegal means wrong - that's
> your own invention.  It's not even responsive to the fragment
> that you quoted.  

  "Threads evolve, Finkelstein.  People can read an article and
   reply to any piece of it or to the entire article.  They are
   not required to stick to the subject of your choosing.  If
   you don't want to discuss the new topic, no one will force
   you to do so."

       <555@blue.cis.pitt.edu>

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Birth Positions, brief Christmas message
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:24:19 GMT

In <1992Dec22.194155.10971@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article by Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>:
>>
>>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...

>>AR> PS, yes, I also had a quite carring and supporting and wonderful helpmate
>>AR> during my second delivery.  But not even he, who rubbed my back ceaselessly
>>                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>AR> for 6 hours, would claim to have carried anywhere near the 'same' burden.
>>    ^^^^^^^^^^^

>>Hmmm...?  You delivered while on all fours?  (It would seem this way, if your
>>husband had to rub your *back* while you were in labour, unless it was the case
>>that you switched back and went onto your back after he rubbed your back)

Will, my wife never got into delivery position before she was at
least 8 cm dilated.  In her first delivery, I rubbed her back with her in
all sorts of positions.  What seemed to work best, though, was to move
a warm-water-filled rolling pin up and down her back when she was lying on
her left side.  [Yep, even the detail of it being her *left* side is
vividly etched in my memory.]

>>This isn's a flame, just a question - Why???

Take it easy, Will, these questions usually have logical answers if 
you'll just wait for them.  One ? is ample.

About Adrienne, it appears from what she wrote in a recent post that this 
helpmate is no longer with her, or else it was not the man who fathered
her second child. I would not want any woman to
be in her place, having to raise two children along with everything 
else she does.  Adrienne has expressed bitterness about a lot of things,
and here's my sincere wish for a happy holiday season for her and 
everyone else.

A more extensive Christmas message will have to wait until Saturday.
My wife is very understanding about all this networking I am doing,
but I really shouldn't impose on her patience any longer.  Especially
with Christmas eve tomorrow, and us not having even trimmed the tree
yet.  Lots of midnight oil to be burned this week.

Peter Nyikos
	
PS.  I will have lots to say about the following quote soon. Clue:
Trumped-up Charge #8 agains Suzanne reads in part, "There is no such
species as man."  Note the absence of the word and its derivatives
 in the excerpt from the
new non-sexist version of a certain song below:

	QUOTE OF THE WEEK

Hail the heaven-born Prince of Peace, hail the Sun of Righteousness!
Light and Life to all He brings, risen with healing on his wings!
Mild he lays his glory by, born that we no more may die,
Born to raise us from the earth, born to give us Second Birth

Hark, the herald angels sing!  Glory to the newborn king!
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:43:13 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>
>John - You've called a spade a spade.  Obviously Brian can't sleep with 
>the pro-abortion label on his head.  Don't be suckered-in to this clap 
>trap word game.

I can sleep quite well, thank you.  I'm just trying to set terms
straight, as the original poster was apparently trying to do.

I am NOT pro-abortion.  I believe that abortion should only be used as
a last resort; it's something I wouldn't want anyone to go through.

The point of my post was that allowing something does not necessarily
mean being in favor of it.  I allow open-heart surgery, neo-Nazi
demonstrations, abortions, and loud ties, but I personally wouldn't
enjoy any of them.

-- 
_/_/_/  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
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: DODie's fear
Date: 4 Jan 93 02:25:40 GMT
	<1993Jan3.183600.13294@ncsu.edu> <1343@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
	<PATRICK.93Jan3192739@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Seconds ahead, when minutes count.

In article <PATRICK.93Jan3192739@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

   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.

...and he's showing that again this evening, it would appear:  he's jammed
the whole stupid 470-line .sig that got him roasted across widely scattered
newsgroups into his .plan -- and since he has the habit of being logged in
on three or four TTYs at one time, you may have quite a wait ahead if you're
reading news at 2400 Baud and decide to finger his account just for laughs,
as it'll return the .plan information for every TTY he's on.  (Even at 19.2,
it took the better part of about 45 seconds to scroll across my screen --
and I'm running at home in 49-line VGA mode...)

--PLH, with today's PSA


--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Meet Operation Rescue
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:29:57 GMT

In article <CORWIN+.92Dec23123233@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> 
corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>   Excerpts from:
>>      "Abortion foes stereotyped, some in the media believe",
>>      by David Shaw, Los Angeles Times, July 2, 1990,
>>      Reprinted in the Congressional Record, Oct 9, 1990 S 14817

> What is the point?

Ms. Garvin posted a one-sided and biased account of a woman's 
encounter with Operation Rescue.  In response, I posted another 
viewpoint of the group.  Sorry if that confused you.


>Scott Safier


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
From: farm@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (B. Munroe)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: UTCS Public Access
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 07:10:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.205543.17029@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (B. Munroe) writes:
>
>>.....  Neither pro-choice or pro-life -- just pro-responsibility  .....
>
>Don't be shy...tell us: would you support anti-abortion laws?  Is this
>"pro-responsibility" the same as pro-lifers pretending if a woman
>gets pregnant she should be forced to carry to term?
>
>Thanks, Bob.
>

I guess you first have to define what responsibility means to you.
To me it means to live my life in such a way so as to cause as little
grief, pain, duress, discomfort, etc. to other beings as possible.
That's why I'm a bleeding heart, liberal vegetarian AR person.
That also means that I personally am a pro-life person.  It doesn't
mean that I expect everyone to be pro-life - I leave that up to the
individual.  In other words, globally I'm pro-choice - I just personally 
choose to respect fetal rights.

By pro-responsibility I mean that the individual has to decide on which side
of an issue to stand based on who they are.  This means researching
and giving serious thought to an issue - informed decision making vs.
raw reaction.

A vegan friend of mine classes meat-eaters into two groups: uninformed
and evil (the term 'evil' is his - please flame /dev/null if it insults you).
He says the 'uninformed' meat-eaters are those who have not yet realized
that eating meat is bad (i.e. cruel).  He says the 'evil' meat-eaters are
those who know how much pain and suffering that an animal goes through before
ending up on a plate, yet refuse to change their lifestyle.

I use the above example to illustrate what I mean by responsibility -
changing your habits and lifestyle to reflect your true beliefs (no matter
how different they may be from your friends', relatives', etc).

Hope that clarifies things.


Bob

-- 
.............................................................
Bob Munroe		: Internet>	farm@utcs.utoronto.ca
The Farm		: CompuServe>	71160,3455
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:54:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.051047.18463@netcom.com> 
ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes: 

>>>> What are laws if not an attempt to force majority morals on the minority?

>>> Self interest.  [...]  neither you nor I will be harmed by an abortion.

>> This is why pro-choicers must condone infanticide.

> Both of us know damn well that a lot of people would be gravely
> harmed by the arbitrary killing of infants.  

We're not necessarily talking about the "arbitrary" killing
of infants.  If it could be shown that the killing of
a particular infant would not harm society (for example,
a secret killing), then you would have to condone that
particular killing. 

> Any possible gain of allowing
> such is far outweighed by the definite and significant costs.  

There are definite and significant costs associated with
caring for abandoned/unwanted newborn infants.  These
infants have no self-interest.  Your philosophy allows
them to be killed.  

> However,
> in the case of abortion (and especially early abortions), 
> the gains of allowing abortions (probably) outweighs the 
> costs.

You've arbitrarily assigned zero cost to the violation
of the individual rights of the child.  I don't believe
that the gains associated with allowing abortion can 
outweigh the costs associated with violating the child's
rights. 
 
> 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.

I don't consider my argument to be "slander".  I recognize 
that those who would condone infanticide would never actually
consider killing an infant. 
 

>Ray Fischer                  


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:52:23 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 <1992Dec22.212341.496@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>
>>> What are laws if not an attempt to force majority morals on the minority?
>
>> Self interest.  [...]  neither you nor I will be harmed by an abortion.
>
>This is why pro-choicers must condone infanticide.

Not!
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Doug's a BIG one, now! (WAS Re: about chasing people off the net)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:33:58 GMT

Do you get the feeling the Holtster likes grabbing suckers from little
kids just to see them cry?

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = James Keegan:
>>> = Earlier Doug:
>>> = Larry Margolis:

>>> You're one ugly bastard, Keegan.  I never thought anyone
>>> could stoop so low as to flame someone who's passed away. 

>> but someone has tried to use a
>> person's death to unjustly flame someone else. do you
>> know who that person is

>Sure, Larry Margolis:

PN>Ask Siren if you can.  You can't?  Why not?

LM>   Because she's dead, you ignoramus.
LM>   "Remember me at my best."     Rest in peace, Siren.

>No doubt we won't see pro-choicers flame Larry Margolis for
>his mistake.

Bad boy, Larry!  "No doubt" you're wrong, dickhead.  And boy, let's not
give Larry a break for what few knew - that Siren was a composite of
personalities.

Rather the opposite of forced-birth loonies like you, Liar...posting
from multiple sites, but only *one* personality.  And that one ugly and
flawed.

With that grammar school "Nyah Nyah" style of yours, I can imagine
your school peers constantly beating the crap out of a you when
you were merely a *little* prick.  SOMEthing like this must've happened 
that's left this bitter, unhappy remnant of a person we call Liar 
Holtsinger.  

If you fill us in, we might be nicer to you.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: independent party? (was: Abortion, Caves, Galen)
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.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 17:33:53 GMT

In article <aidler.725888809@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>
>>In article <aidler.725614614@sanjuan>, aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA writes:
>>|An independent party needs to consider the opinion of
>>|experts along with the interests of mother and child and 
>>|evaluate how realistic the woman's desire for an 
>>|abortion is compared with any reasonable alternatives.
>
>>Why?  Why is it the business of any "independent party"?  Why
>>not allow the woman or the couple (if it exists) to make
>>decisions about her body?  Have you heard of the concept of a
>>"right to privacy"?  
>
>I am extending human rights to the fetus.
>To extinquish those rights without an 
>independent evaluation is not just.
>
And you do so totally without providing any jusitifcation for your
claim that a fetus deserves any human rights.

>>Would you like this "independent party" to make other decisions
>>concerning this woman's body as well?  Say, which birth control
>>method she should be using, which kinds of treatments she get
>>for various illnesses, etc.?
>
>How people manage their private lives is none
>of my concern.
>
You are absolutely right. So why do you insist on butting into the
private decisions regarding reproduction?

>>Note that no child is involved in abortion.  The woman's
>>interests are the only interests to consider.  If you feel
>>otherwise, you have to prove your case.
>
>Parents have children.
>A pregnant woman is already a parent
>(whether you or she chooses to acknowledge it or not).
>
Here we go... More of that TbBA you are so good at.

--
                  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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Susan sinks to a new low. [Was: Meet P...]
From: corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:00:48 GMT
 ec28131851@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> <1203@blue.cis.pitt.edu><PATRICK.92Dec28183551@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU

In article <PATRICK.92Dec28183551@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:


      In article <PATRICK.92Dec28131851@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
      [everything else deleted - enjoyed, but deleted]
      #Funny that you see it when YOU'RE on the receiving end of it, but it's
      #perfectly okay to use to bash others with...do you really like being that
      #much of a hypocrite?  

      I don't know why he's complaining - he types those three letters in
      more often than anyone else around here - I thought he wanted to
      be associated with them.  He's certainly go a fixation on race,
      though.  He's hypothesizing about the racial makeup of t.a. - I
      wonder what criteria he is using to assign race to posters.
      I wonder if he thinks he knows my race.

   Hell, he probably thinks he knows what color everyone in my family is, as
   well.  (Of course, he's plain wrong in at least a couple of cases, and not
   even in the same area code on about ten others, but that's about par for the
   course for PHoney.)

Wait! wait! wait! wait! wait.

Petey honey originally wrote:
 Susan, have you no shame?  Any objective person, comparing our treatments
 of Steve Chaney, the one Afro-American in this newsgroup that I know of, 
 will see how completely perverse this designation of me is.

Chaney was treated like an insane moron.  I don't care what color a
person's skin is.  I treat moronic assholes all the same, without
prejudice.  Susan Garvin (F.B.-W.f H.) or Patrick, do you care what color a
moron's skin is?

      I'm not sure if he enjoys being a hypocrite or not.  I hope so.
      I hate to see anyone spending that much time doing something
      they don't like.

   I sympathize with that -- but just think of all that goodwill he's
   generating for the USC with his ravings...:-)

I want to know how old Nyikos is claiming to be.  Perhap Nyikos will
claim that his child, a junior high school student, got hold of his
news feed during one of those rare moments when it was working, and
typed in this drivvle.

Scott Safier (D.J.D.)                                   corwin+@cmu.edu
Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
        
member, T.S.A.K.C.  B0/1 f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++

"Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a cure for AIDS in the marketplace
before Magic Johnson gets AIDS?"
             (soon to be ex-)Vice President Dan Quayle, 11/13/91 (CNN)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: NRL
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:21:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.174350.2568@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
> In article <C015n2.Ipw@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) 
writes:
> >
> >
> >RE: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
> >
> >In article <28DEC92.21004829@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu 
writes:
> >
> >> Do you know of any way to give rights to a fetus without taking away 
> >rights 
> >> from the pregnant woman?
> >> 
> >>                              .... Heather.
> >
> >
> [Paul's dodge deleted]
...

Marks deletion of my post:
               ------------------
"Nice "trick" question.  Like, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
The question pre-supposes the conclusion that

1) all rights by definition are inviolate

2) the rights of the unborn child will automatically conflict with the 
mother.

3) the pregnant woman has, by definition, higher priority rights than 
others.

But, Heather, I'll grant you your question does have a noble ring to it.  
It plays well across the country.  Keep up the double talk."

         ---------------
> Nice dodge Paul. Now try answering the question.
> 

You're right Mark, how silly of me to forget.  Yes, I have stopped beating 
my wife.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: An Admission
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 23:59:28 GMT

About 2.5 years ago, when I first started posting to the Net about paternity 
child support, I fell into the "blackmail" trap a la Karl Denninger, whereby 
I made some veiled (maybe not so veiled) threats that if the paternity child 
support laws weren't reformed, perhaps the next reasonable alternative for 
achieving reproductive equity was to roll back abortion rights. However, 
after a few rounds of discussion on the Net, and some soul-searching, I 
decided that this was a really stupid idea, and I dropped it completely, 
never to pick it up again. Two wrongs don't make a right, and there is no 
valid comparison between mere pecuniary concerns and the horror of forced 
continuation of pregnancy. The only reason I bring this up now is because 
I have a suspicion that Keegan or someone else will eventually stumble across 
those old posts in their frequent archive searches, and present this as 
"proof" that I'm a pro-forcer, or whatever.

The Net is _supposed_ to be a opportunity to learn and develop and grow. I had 
never read talk.abortion at the time I made those statements, and my 
(moderate) pro-choice views, although strong and fairly well thought-out, 
weren't nearly as solid as they are today. So, I admit, repudiate, retract,
recant, apologize for, and in all other ways regret and take back those posts. 
Nowadays, such a view wouldn't even get a second thought from me.

Hopefully, those who bear me malice will at least have enough decency to not 
try to attack me for views I have not held or professed for almost a 
quarter-decade...

							- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52562 soc.men:21571 alt.dads-rights:3049