HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 06:30:49 GMT
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1992Dec25.200245.13638@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec20.021358.18235@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>[Where's that chainsaw...]
>>
>>>Not really. They could opt to just run the risk of a lawsuit. The point here
>>>is that Cochran has thrown his support behind a "legal restriction" that 
>>>doesn't exist right now. Above, you even admit that persons OTHER than the 
>>>patient, can sign the consent forms, but Cochran made no such qualification
>>>when he announced his "legal restriction". Above, you seem to admit that 
>>>while the consent forms may "feel" [sic] like a statutory requirement, that 
>>>they may not in fact be a statutory requirement. Unless you have a rabbit to 
>>>pull out of your hat now, I think it's time to admit that no such "legal 
>>>restriction" exists.
>>
>>Wrong again, Kebbin.  I had six teeth pulled a couple of months ago.  They
>>wouldn't do the surgery until I had signed the form.  Obviously, if I was
>>under the age of consent, my legal guardians would have to sign.

>Was this a statutory requirement, or just something the insurance company
>(yours and/or your dentist's) required?

>In any case, there's a legal difference between "consent" and "a request".
>It's a matter of who initiates what. You would mandate abortion "requests".

Hmmm, I'm sure it would sometimes happen that the woman goes in for an
examination and the doctor says, "Oh, by the way, there seems to be a
complication with your pregnancy and you should get an abortion; if you'll
just sign this form...."  Yeah, right.  [Sarcasm meter reading 99%]

Of course, sometimes it really is medically necessary to terminate a pregnancy.
Perhaps K Cochran could tell us whether his alleged "request" requirement would
count this as an exception.  If so, then it is pretty obvious that the
"requirement" is already handled by medical procedure.  I find it hard to
believe that he would *not* allow that as an exception, since even the pro-life
supporters allow an abortion if the mother's life is at risk.

Aside from the case of a medical need for an abortion, can you give an example
where a doctor could ethically suggest an abortion?
Just to clarify a bit:  If the woman is unsure of what to do and asks to
discuss options with her doctor, and the doctor mentions abortion as a possible
option, and she decides on abortion as her choice then I would consider it to
be "requesting" an abortion; perhaps K Cochran woul, too.

>								- Kevin

-Rob
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53600 alt.abortion.inequity:6225
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Apologies to Garvin, Keegan, clueless newbies, and Regard
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:07:57 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

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


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

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

>--PLH, never eat onion soup...
>
>
>--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: In respect of Suzanne 
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:48:27 GMT

> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> = (Gordon Storga):
>>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:

>>> <about Doug Holtzinger>
>>>Only Rasmussen, Forgach and Chaney can equal his strange predilection
>>>for dishonesty and hostility.

>> I disagree with Suzanne on nearly everything, but I'll grant her this -
>> she's no coward.

>Hey thanks, Gordon!
>
>(Speaking of cowards, you know, I really do have a hard time understanding
> this cultural widespread fear of babies!)

Gads.  You may be no coward, but you're certainly a hateful, intolerant idiot.

You're welcome, Suzanne.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
Organization: The Argument Clinic
	<1993Jan1.195123.11272@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 21:15:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.195123.11272@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   In article <PATRICK.93Jan1095848@blanco.is.rice.edu> 
   patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

   > "USENET Warlord", I can understand -- you *did* make a show of threatening
   > people in e-mail, and on other networks, no less.  

   This is pretty funny coming from someone who's said 
   "march your fat black ass down here".   Who are you 
   going to threaten next with your racist remarks? 

Uh, Rev -- show me *specifically* where I threatened the little git.  Why
are you so quiet when he sends me mail that says, basically, that he's going
to "take care of me once and for all"?   I have the copy of that, remember?
That mail is at least part of the reason he took his little unscheduled
vacation the last couple of months.  I never denied I said what I did -- but
would you enlighten us on just how he's "threatened" by a remark, and would
you enlighten us even further on why you think this is any of your goddamn
business in the first place?

--PLH, watching DODie spaz out just in time for the new year...
--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 05:56:18 GMT

<1993Jan2.094941.7852@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
><1992Dec30.005219.9201@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><nyikos.725573716@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>><1157@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>>...showing absolutely *no* shame about quoting things out of context:
>>>>In article <1992Dec24.023729.15109@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
...
>>Susan has proved to be one of the few people who are generally logical and
>>well-thought out in her responses and statements.  
>
>Are we talking about the same "Susan", Gordon?

I don't know.  I was talking about Susan Garvin.  Who were you talking
about?

>>That coupled with the
>>fact that she isn't trying to get laws passed that oppress people makes
>>her much easier to believe.  
>
>Ideological bias. Ptui. I'll try to forget that I read that...

Shouldn't be too difficult for you...

>>Although she has been known to get after some people a little too much it's 
>>no big deal.  
>
>To you, as a more-or-less-neutral bystander of this "getting after", it may 
>not seem like a "big deal", Galen. It can seem otherwise from a different 
                             ^^^^^
See, I told you it wouldn't be too difficult for you.

>vantage point, though, believe me...

I'm sure it can.

>>If Susan was to post something that conflicted with my experience of
>>knowledge I would correct her.  She hasn't as far as I'm aware.
>
>Here's an example from the top of a long list, Galen: do you "know" that 
                                                ^^^^^
There you go again.  Try not to forget too much, ok?

>Kevin Darcy been arguing for restrictions on abortion? See .sig.
>
>UNRETRACTED LIE
>---------------
>
>"Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
> himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
>				    Susie Garvin
>				    Sun, 18 Oct 92 20:37:06 GMT
>				    <1992Oct18.203706.21850@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>

Perhaps I should clarify something.  I don't read all the posts in this
newsgroup.  And I'm not going to go out of my way to research everything
Susan might have said.  I have no evidence or experience to contradict
your quote of SG.  Since you have disputed it then at least someone with
more info than myself has spoken up.  I feel no need in this case to join
the fray.


G-O-R-D-O-N
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
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: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True <whatever>
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: Wed, 30 Dec 92 06:20:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.012145.13731@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <C01Mxq.1I5@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>>
>>This is silly, of course.  Pro-abortion means obviously you favor its
>>availability.
>
>No, "pro-choice" means you favor the availability of that choice;
>"pro-abortion" means you favor the choice itself.
>
>>I know why the the term "pro-choice" was invented.  Do you?  "Choice" is
>>to "Pro-abortion" as "tinkle"  is to "urinate".  We just tend not to use
>>certain words in certain situations.
>
>Well, say "pro-choice-for-abortion" if it makes you happy.  But saying
>"pro-abortion" in place of "pro-choice" is simply wrong.
>--
	It really *is* silly, though.  It's obviously vitally important, for
some reason, for Lebow to label anyone opposed to outlawing abortion as
"pro-abortion".  I say let him, if that makes him feel better.  Who cares?
	For one thing, it quite clearly makes the opposing side 
"anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life".  Which ought to make them happy,
since it allows them to support the death penalty and a variety of wars
(and oppose gun control) without being in danger of accusations of hypocrisy.

The_Doge
ObQuote:	"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo"
			- H.G. Wells


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:46:29 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 <C04w4u.CBs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>That's not a fetus.

Right - in most abortions, it's an embryo, not yet a fetus.

>Don't put words into my mouth.  Having sex and getting pregnant are not crimes.
>They are, however, actions that an adult must deal with like an adult.

Abortion is one way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.

>Don't call it a fetus because I doubt you know what a fetus really is.

Well, *I* think I do; what do *you* think a fetus is?

>Having sex is exactly the same thing.  Once you have CHOSEN (pro-choice?)
>to have sex, you must grow up and be responsible for the result of that
>action.

Getting an abortion is one way of taking responsibility if that action results
in an unwanted pregnancy.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
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: Sat, 2 Jan 93 17:07:45 GMT

In article <ubsvb88@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>---
>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:

>|Do you think any of this stuff through before you post it?  I do NOT have
>|the right to FORCE YOU to stop driving.  YOU might run me over when I'm walking
>|down the street.  YOU might slam your care into my kitchen when I'm eating
>|dinner.  YOU might kill my mother.  Hacking a baby into pieces amounts to the
>|same thing. [...]
>
>Meaning that you "do NOT have the right to FORCE [hsims] to stop"
>obtaining an abortion.  Quite right!
>
>By the way, no babies are involved in abortion.  Babies haven't
>reached puberty, after all, and so can't possibly be pregnant.
>And I also assume babies aren't capable of being doctors.
>
CJ, you have to remember...
We're dealing with people here who seem capable of believing that
"Doogie Howser, MD" is a documentary....

--
                  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
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 10:03:44 GMT

ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) writes:

>In article <14DEC92.20420711@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>|Prove that you are willing to sacrifice your time, money, and bodily 
>|resources for the life of a fetus, or quit demanding that women do that.
>|Otherwise you are nothing more than a sexist hypocrite.

>I find this argument bizarre.

>For one thing, there is a big difference between being willing to make
>sacrifices which are actually necessary to "save" the life of a fetus,

and being forced to do so by law.

                   -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 13:23:28 GMT

eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
[...]
->Pro-Choice            Anti-Roe            - E. Elizabeth Bartley

   "My preferences as to when to restrict abortions
   don't allow women who prefer to wait until the third
   trimester to get abortions, no.  This doesn't
   particularly upset me.  I want restrictions to start
   at the *earliest* 22 weeks (more likely 24), and by
   that time she should have known she was pregnant
   long enough to have had an abortion if she wanted
   one."
      <1992May25.204212.8159@midway.uchicago.edu>

   "For the woman, I'd support a jail sentence of at least a
   month, probably somewhat more, (six months to a year if
   we had unlimited space in non-hellhole prisons, but we
   don't), with hefty community service tacked on to that."
      <1992May25.234304.14516@midway.uchicago.edu>

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: The Supreme Court exceeded its authority in Roe v. Wade
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 05:47:52 GMT

I recently ran across a stunning quote concerning 
the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade:

  "... Nor did The Times--or most of the other major media--pay
   much attention to the discovery by Bob Woodward of the 
   Washington Post last year that two justices who had played
   a major role in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing
   abortion had conceded, in private memos, that they knew
   they were ``legislating policy and exceeding [the court's]
   authority as the interpreter, not the maker of law,'' as
   Woodward wrote."

   The Los Angeles Times, July 2, 1990
   "Abortion foes stereotyped, some in the media believe",
   by David Shaw


I find this to be a remarkable revelation, and I was wondering
if anyone knew the date of the Washington Post story, or any
details about the "private memos" of the justices.


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
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: Wed, 30 Dec 92 04:51:25 GMT

In article <1223@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>It's very nice of you to want to share your bonus points.  As a reward,
>I'll let you judge the other category.
>
>(Whew.  I got out of that one...)
>
Um... I don't think I can be considered an unbiased judge for this
Susan... 
I guess you'll have to do it after all. :)

--
                  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
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: still more of the GROUP, kevin darcy
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 14:23:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.013333.9102@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.222342.9380@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>Do you have an objective definition of "rampant twits"? Or is that just
>>something you conveniently pull out of your hat when you lose a rational 
>>argument on the merits, and wish to mask your ignominious defeat behind
>>mindless flames?
>>
>Oh, I don't... How about this? How about if we label all people who
>argue in favor of restrictions on abortion, while denying that the
>yare, in fact, doing so, rampant twits.

Inherently subjective, since the person presumably wouldn't be denying 
the charge if they actually AGREED with it.

I have never argued affirmatively for restrictions on abortion, Mark. 
Deal with it as best you can.

>Or, we could append the label to those who think they've won some sort
>of rational argument on merit, when they have completely failed to do
>anything of the sort.

Inherently subjective also.

>Those sort of fit, don't they Kevin?

Like a square peg in a round hole, or a fish on a bicycle, yeah...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:03:16 GMT

<1992Dec21.201836.6320@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
><BzMAvL.D2t@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>><1992Dec19.105022.6279@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>> 
>>>But what on earth does support for anti-abortion have to do with either of
>>>these?  Men who want reproductive rights should be supporting abortion on
>>>demand.  If they don't then they are just fighting themselves, not women.
>>>Because if abortion is totally outlawed, then you can BET the number of
>>>men required to pay support will increase dramaticly.
>> 
>> I don't see your reasoning.
>> 
>> 1.  Perhaps the number of pregnancies would go down (or extranational
>> abortions increase), if abortion were illegal.
>
>What you mean *perhaps*?  If the number didn't go down I would be extremely
>surprised.
>First of all, you are missing the fact that lots of women vote.  Lots of
>women support Pro-choice.  IF you want to get laws changed, then you'd
>best better start getting some women on your side.  Seems that you have
>no interest in that.  Seems you might get a clue that being incredibly
>hostile doesn't get you anything except enemies who would be more inclined
>to fight anything you came up with just because they don't like you.

Sue,

Who are you talking to?  Seems you have no interest in reading
before responding.  Or rather, reading before flaming.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Suzanne's "Abortion kills children"
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 23:16:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.211910.15833@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu 
(Suzanne Forgach) writes:

}Then what the hell was Roe V. Wade?   46 out of 50 states had in fact
}outlawed it, and that one court edict did indeed "make abortion legal".

Contrary to what some people think, Roe V. Wade was a decision of the
supreme court, not legislation.  It did in fact overturn some legislation,
in particular that which restricted abortion, but it itself was not
legislation.  It did not make abortion legal, it overturned some laws
making abortion illegal.  Anything is legal unless laws make it 
illegal.  q.e.d.  (I think that is latin for "Kevin Darcy is an absolute
fool.")

}Galen, "The law teaches."   Think about it.

The law punishes too.  Even if you didn't intend it.  The law is enforced
unfairly too.  I know the law can teach.  It also can do those other things
too, even if you didn't intend it.  Think about that.

}_Your_ problem is knee-jerking, Galen, since you obviously have not looked
}closely at anything I've said in years.

}Galen, you are far more hateful and disgusting than I ever gave you credit 
}for.

So is life, at least as you see it.  You look at your own little part
of the world and say it is bright and clean, but when you look at the 
big picture you're only over in a little corner of the cesspool, 
protesting that it shines, well, in comparison...

Years it took you to realize that I am disgusting.  And I used to think
you were fairly smart...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...