HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Summary: Peter obviously knows not what he posts.
Organization: This organization unintentionally left blank.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 11:38:59 GMT

In article <nyikos.714853823@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Aug25.121138.22714@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>
>>HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>>-> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
>>-> >    I'll make a deal with all of you who want to
>>-> > prohibit elective third trimester abortions.
>[lines deleted]
>>-> > It you agree that all adult women, before
>>-> > fetal viability, have a right to an abortion, I
>>-> > will agree to oppose third trimester abortions.
>>-> > Any takers?  I didn't think so.
>>-> 
>>->   Wrong, RVW breath!  You're on.  That is, in fact,
>>-> exactly what I support.  Now, please start
>>-> supporting a ban on 3rd trimester abortions.
>
>>it's interesting watching you guys trade away the
>>rights of women.
>
>>do you have special powers to do this or do you think
>>any male has the power to barter away the rights of all
>>females?
>
>No, only Harry Blackmun and the six justices whom he either
>conned or was in cahoots with back in '73.

That's pretty interesting -- either way, according to you, the decision was
some sort of conspiracy?  I'd be interested in seeing what your evidence is
for *that*.

>They bartered away the rights of women vis-a-vis abortionists.

They did?  Exactly what rights did they "barter" away?  Last time I looked,
no women were being forced to have abortions -- and RvW was going on 20
years ago.  I'd think someone would have made mention of that by now if such
was the case.

>[In all fairness it should be added that they maybe knew not what
>they were doing.]
>
>Peter Nyikos

...or it could be that maybe you know not what you're talking about in this
instance.  :-)

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
                  COUGARS     TIGERS     RAVENS     HUSKIES
  OILERS     OWLS             *Any questions?*              ROCKETS     ASTROS
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Shrugging off an aborted pregnancy (was Re: Another good reason 
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:59:51 GMT

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

[--excerpt from Sue Hertz, _Caught in the Crossfire: A Year 
on Abortion's Front Line_ deleted--]

Boy, that sure was ikky.  Were you grossed out, too,  Doug?  I guess
this means that you shouldn't go into medicine if you can't handle
ikky-gross stuff.

drieux's _Tales from the MASH Unit_ to follow...

-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 23:41:25 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <nyikos.715380785@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Aug30.072618.32178@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.co
>
> But the bottom line is, do we stake the life of a being who is already
> quite possibly sentient on it, or do we give it the benefit of the doubt?

Before 28 weeks, it's *not* possible.  And Roe v. Wade allows protection to
begin a while before that.

> >> She might want one, not realizing how dangerous it is.
>
> >Or, she might want to give birth, not realizing how even more dangerous it is.
> >Better outlaw that, too.
>
> This is typical pro-abortion propaganda.

You mean because I have facts and figures to back me up, while you have
lies and unfounded opinions obtained from anti-abortion newsletters?
Yes, typical.  :-)

> Dangerousness depends very much upon the individual case.

But *on average* an early-term abortion is 8 to 12 times safer than
carrying to term.

> >> Like taking away the choice to go to a back alley butcher?  Would you
> >> make what they do legal?  [Actually, it is legal, and happens even today.]
>
> >It's legal?  I was under the impression that abortions had to be performed
> >by a doctor.  Can you tell me where it's legal for a "back alley butcher"
> >to perform an abortion?
>
> "Doctor" and "back alley butcher" are not mutually exclusive terms.

Then enlighten me.  How do you define "back alley butcher", and where is
this going on today?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who was "Dennis Hall"?
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:29:47 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Aug20.015318.12007@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <Bt98Ev.Bp9@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>}In article <1684554D.HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Patrick Humphrey) writes:
>}>In article <1992Aug16.003415.17098@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>} 
>}>>                Shhh, Scott.
>}>>                We know you're posting as Pat Harumphrey because
>}>>                you both lie the same way.
>} 
>}>Come on, Steve.  Let's see just how much of a boy you are.  March your
>}>fat black ass down here and tell me I'm a liar, to my face.  (I hope
>}     ^^^^^
>}Excuse me, Patrick.  I don't see that Steve's skin color is of any relevance.  
>}I find the phraseology here repugnant.
>
>After carefully checking to see which way the wind is blowing, I have to
>agree with Scott.  Patrick, while I am sure you have your reasons and
>explainations, I don't think an unconditional apology to Steve would be
>out of order.  I doubt I like Chaney (or whoever he this week) any more
>than anyone else but I think "ignorant scum-sucking bottom feeder" 
>describes him as well as "<racial comment> ignorant scum-sucking bottom
>feeder."  

Oh, gee, it sounds like PatricKKK has been admonished by his minister,
Scott Roby, and by his fellow pulpit-goer, Galen. 

Hey, have you given the Church of Scott Roby your donation today? They need
donations for their "Steve Chaney posts as Dennis Hall" story. 

How's about the Congregation of PatricKKK Harumphrey? They need
donations for their "Steve Chaney posts as Conrad Vincent" story. 

So if you feel like donating needed money to the most scum-sucking
bottom feeder causes of all time, donate to them. 


===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation 
Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   And a Democrat to Boot | 
                           <<<=== Pro-Life ===>>> 
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Not wishing to scare you ....
Date: 23 Aug 92 20:54:27 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

lpb@STRATUS.SWDC.STRATUS.COM (Len Bucuvalas) writes:
] 
] I believe there was a case recently (last 5 months or so?) of a
] woman who was accosted for going to an abortion clinic in the
] midwest somewhere....the story was on CNN. But what caught my
] notice was that she testified that she was in for a THIRD
] TRIMESTER ABORTION!!!!! And that my friends is murder by
] mutilation In My Opinion! Abortions must remain available ONLY
] while the fetus is still just a fetus. When that thing
] develops neurons...it is human IMO.

I do hope that a little trip down reality lane will not hurt too much.

A friend of mine was obliged to have a Third Trimester abortion,
and to 'go out of state' to get it to save the life of the mother....


So let us spin that BigFerrisWheelOfKharma again
and see what comes up......

1. len opposes third trimester abortions as they are unpleasant.

2. len opposes saving the life of the mother.....


ciao
drieux


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: :(  mcbeanb@brandonu.ca dying
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 30 Aug 92 13:37:38 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug29.123817.2180@brandonu.ca>, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>      My usenet account expires wednesday, sept.2, so I won't be
> posting after that.
> 
> Is it legal to post with someone else's account I wonder?
> Please email comments quick.

Just an update:
     After Wednesday, I may be reached by email at the following
account:  bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu

     The only trouble with that is I won't be able to consistently
use this account until November, which is when the silly immigration
people will likely allow me to cross the border to get married in
Houston.
     Still looking for usenet access between September and November...

Brian McBean
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:41:43 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.140639.6280@bmw.mayo.edu>
>bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:

>> A fetus has never been a legal person.

>Before Roe v. Wade was handed down, there was never any constitutional
>right to kill a member of the human species.

There isn't one now. There is a contitutional right to not be pregnant
if a woman so desires. The removal of the z/e/f generally entails the
death of same, but such is life. Please do get your terms straight.
You are getting more and more slanted with your terminology.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Date: 4 Sep 1992 16:02:56 -0400
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Vienna, Va.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

In article <29505@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.173611.6427@ncsu.edu>
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes: 
>
>>which show that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion on demand throughout 
>>the term of pregnancy and then expect me to accept your pro-abortion
>
>Easy: You haven't provided unbiased sources to support your claim.
>
>SJM

Yes he has!

Just read the article titled:

		"MURDERERS!!!!"

It appears in the monthly syndication:

		"Holier Than Thou"

Which is free to anyone who is a member of The National Society
of Quaker Wannabees.

-- Mike

----------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, the above is 100% sarcasm. My brand of sarcasm.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Abortion:  My Views
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:51:13 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <lach7lINN577@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM writes:

> In article <1992Sep2.221028.11532@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> >In article <la9sq7INNp3p@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> 
> >emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
> 
> >>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >>>Eric_Gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric gorr) writes:
> 
> >>>> Legislated morality doesn't work.  
> 
> >>> Then are you against legislating in the areas of homicide, 
> >>> rape, and theft?
> 
> >> These are not necessairly moral issues.
> 
> >If homicide, rape, and theft laws are not based upon morality,
> >then what are they based upon? 
> >Doug Holtsinger
> 
> They are based on the need to restrict certain behavior in order to
> improve the functioning of the society. This is not a moral issue,
> it is a social issue.
> Eric

  Okay, but what makes certain "social structures" better than others?  

  Methinks it rests in the eyes of those who behold the society -- who cannot
but make certain judgements based upon thier moral views.  How should society
function?  What defines a well-functioning society?  I submit that people of
differing moralities will supply different definitions of what this means,
especially when you start applying them via laws and such.

  Much as we may wish to, I do not believe that morality and society can be
cleaved from one another.  The best that can be hoped for, functionality-wise,
is a society based upon the morality of the majority of those within it.  Pref-
erably, this majority approaches unanimity.  The smaller the majorities, the 
greater the likelihood of strife.  The reverse is a recipe for stagnation, but
it *will* function smoothly -- as those within it perceive it.

  It is a great balancing act.


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: The Legal Definition of "Abortion" (SC law)
Summary: Some peculiarities not shared by newsgroup pointed out.
Keywords: abortion, pregnant, intent, known
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:37:18 GMT

South Carolina law has its own definition of "abortion" which has 
some peculiarities not shared by the working definition used by the
talk.abortion newsgroup.  Here is the definition, from p. 1870
of STATUTES AT LARGE (General and Permanent Laws-1990).

Definition

SECTION 3. Section 44-41-10(a) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"(a) `Abortion' means the use of an instrument, medicine, drug or other
substance or device with intent to terminate the pregnancy of a woman
known to be pregnant for reasons other than to increase the probability
of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after
live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth,
or to remove a dead fetus."

My comments:

1. There has been some discussion about whether laws against abortion
prohibit spontaneous abortion, etc.  The answer is clearly no, at least
as far as South Carolina goes.

2. Note the words "use" and "intent": nowhere is it required that the
pregnancy be terminated.  So unsuccessful abortions, and incomplete
abortions, are still abortions in the legal sense.

3. The words "known to be pregnant" rule out all the usual uses of IUD's
and "morning after pills."  They also seem to introduce a bizarre loophole:
If a clinic does not do a pregnancy test, or does a test that comes out a false
negative and then proceeds with a D&C, it is not doing an abortion in the
legal sense until the presence of a fetus is discovered.  And if by then
the fetus has been killed, the "other than...to remove a dead fetus" 
protects the clinic from prosecution.

Now some of this may be legitimate, but you can imagine an unscrupulous
clinc bending the rules.  For example, employee A might tell the patient
she is not pregnant, but is in need of a D&C, all the while knowing that 
the test came out positive.  Then employee B, an abort/gynecologist,
might be told simply that the patient needs a D&C...

Peter Ny.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: None, thank you very much.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:29:49 GMT

In article <dzhnshd.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>>And everybody wants to impose their belief system on the rest of the
>>country through the use of law.
>
>Well, not exactly right.  You want to enact legistlation, I don't want
>legislation enacted.  See the difference?

You don't need to enact more legislation, so long as the supreme court
remains willing to make an end run around the constitution.

>Ray Fischer
>ray@netcom.com

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors ... perform third trimester abortions"
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 22:46:20 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep3.150018.4464@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <1992Aug30.035846.40919@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
> >In  <1992Aug29.180604.13845@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
> >>
> >> [re: "three doctors" claim]
> >>
> >> ...It doesn't appear that Mr. Margolis is
> >> willing to track down the source.
> >
> >That's right - I'm not.  As far as I know, it's true.  If you can
> >list more doctors that perform third tri abortions, or you can
> >document for me cases of women getting third-trimester abortions
> >for "frivolous" reasons, I would of course change my tune.  Unlike
> >some, I don't knowingly pass on lies.
>
> Larry, passing off something as fact without lifting a finger to check whether
> it's true or not demonstrates a reckless disregard for truth, and is in fact
> "lying".

Kevin, the part that you deleted and replaced with an ellipsis was:
> >> The transcript does not mention the source of Stahl's claim
> >> about the "three doctors".  I may write to 60 Minutes to ask
> >> them for a source.

Doug has numerous sources that he can check.  I have seen multiple
independent reports of this, so I'm satisfied that it's true.  No
matter how many sources are provided, it seems that Doug will not
be satisfied with them.  So why should I bother?

> Disproof, on the other hand, is much easier --
> i.e. citing the names of four or more doctors, in this case.

Exactly what I invited Doug to do many times.  It's easier for him to
say "Give me a source.  No, I don't like that one, give me another. ..."

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 22:00:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.200240.10656@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
 
|> 
|> Surely you are glad for the anti-homicide laws that protect YOU, as best
|> they can, from getting knifed and mugged on the street.   
|>

But the problem is they don't protect me from being killed,
they simply allow society to extract vengence upon the person
who killed me if and only if it can be proven that that person
actually did the killing.
 
Laws don't prevent action; it is hoped that the penalties
will disuade an individual from performing the illegal
action. However if an individual decides that the potential
cost of an illegal action is out-weighted by the potential
personal benefit, the law does not protect the victims of
that action.

-- 
--Bruce

"Truth is ultimately a philosophical concept,...,
 and standards of truth are adequate for practical
 purposes if they are substantially more reliable 
 then the system undergoing evaluation"
				C. E. Metz
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Item for Chaney's study of abortion--adult/child sex link.
Keywords: Nyikos failing other arguments goes for guilt by association
Date: 29 Aug 92 13:59:48 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <nyikos.715043800@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> [Dan King wrote] 
> >Were the pro-lifers picketing the house because he was involved in 
> >child pornography (an illegal act), or were they picketing the house
> >because he performed abortions (A legal act).
> 
> Don't assume the abortions were legal.  Here in Columbia almost every
> abortionist has done 2nd trimester abortions in his clinic, and some
> even admit it openly, even though South Carolina law says all 2nd 
> trimester abortions must be done either in a hospital or a licensed
> clinic, and not one of the clinics in South Carolina is licensed.

Here we see that Nyikos has no facts on which to accuse the doctor
in question of performing illegal abortions, so he posts idle
speculation in the guise of facts.
> 
> As to why the pro-lifers were picketing, I don't know, but judging
> from the pro-lifers I know, they were probably protesting both acts.
> Certainly if they knew about all his sleazy porn business, they would
> have been protesting both.

Here we see that Nyikos has no information on the matter at all, but
just speculates that his side would do the right thing if they
knew what it was.  Again, pure speculation and no information.

Sorry, Peter, but this is one of the worst jobs of smear tactics
I've seen on the net in quite some time.  The pretense to information
on your part is amusing, but to easy to see.  Do try harder next time.

Dean Kaflowitz
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33760 alt.flame:12375