HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Any ProNapalm Fans out there?
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:49:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.092753.12246@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
|> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
|> ] 
|> ] What's the problem?  Most 
|> ] would gladly accept that label.  Unless, of course, you're just a wee bit 
|> ] uneasy with the concept of abortion.  A hint of concsience maybe?
|>  
|> Just thought I would ask,
|> or is this too a matter of conscience?

I wouldn't use napalm myself, but I'm for the rights of others to use it.
So I guess I'm pro-choice.  ;->

|> ciao
|> drieux
|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> Modern Day Problems:
|> 
|> This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
|> You are just reading beyond the edge.

Mike Noonan
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Date: 29 Dec 92 16:48:26 GMT
Organization: Naval Research Lab, Washington, DC

Organization: NRL

Re: Slavery Analogy

In article <1992Dec28.213933.3984@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
> I ended my last post with the observation:
> 
>      But those of us (myself included) who would leave the abortion
>      choice to individuals must ask ourselves whether we would also
>      leave the choice to keep slaves to the individual.  If our answer
>      differs, we must be able to clearly explain why.  Arguing "slaves
>      are people" will not do, for it is probable that not everyone
>      agrees.
> 
> I expected some folks would post their clear explanations.
> Unfortunately, only one reply that has appeared so far has done so.


Gregg

Its ironic that you fail to see the significance of your own observation.  
You then proceed to catalog various irrelavent'explantions' presented by 
others.

What has happened is that a very legitimate comparison was made between 
the 'pro-choice' evasion of culpability in the death of millions of 
children, and the 'pro-choice' excuse offered by Stephan Douglas in his 
debate with LIncoln.  The details of the comparison are, of course, 
different, but are quite beside the point.  The point is not, how the 
unborn child and slave are the same, rather, it is how society can, 
through denial and cowardice, allow inhumanity to be perpetrated on a 
grand scale.


> On a final note, I indicated that I include myself among those who
> would leave the abortion choice to individuals.  As a result, I am at
> a loss to understand why questions such as
> 
>     Why do you want to give special rights only to entities that
>     occupy the bodies of women?
> 
> would be directed to me.  I am, of course, unable to answer.

> 
>                                    Gregg Skinner
> 

The answer sticks in your craw, doesn't it?

-Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: t.a. FAQ (part 3 of 3)
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:52:26 GMT

In article <1285@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Please tell me what parts I should include with the
>> quote, and explain why they're relevant to the main
>> point.  

> you're pretending to have forgotten what I wrote the first time that
> you quoted Tushnet out of context.  

You quoted a passage which was irrelevant -- a state law which
required two physicians to attend a post-viability abortion.
That requirement does not prevent women from obtaining post- 
viability abortions.  The FAQ is incorrect--Roe v. Wade is
unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy. 

>>> Why do you keep harping about Roe, anyway? 

>> I believe the public has been grossly misinformed
>> about Roe v. Wade by the media, and I wish to counter
>> that misinformation with correct information. 

> You have yet to provide any correct information, 

You have yet to show that Mark Tushnet is incorrect. 

> you have simply continued to claim something that is contradicted
> by the decision itself.  

No, the decision does not contradict Mark Tushnet's analysis
of Roe v. Wade.

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: about chasing people off the net
Organization: DODie Busters of 77036-2409, Ltd.
	<1992Dec30.230807.5753@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:21:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.230807.5753@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   In article <1992Dec30.223948.20790@crd.ge.com> 
   keegan@crd.ge.com writes:
   >nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes to patrick:

   >> Ask Siren if you can.  You can't?  Why not?  is her
   >> address still a mystery to the net?  Why?  

   > Siren wasn`t chased from the net.
   > she, like many others, appeared to be unable to cope with
   > her failures.

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

You're just foaming at the mouth because you didn't think of it first...

--PLH, awaiting the inevitable demand from the Rev that someone apologize to
the late Siren...
--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Aaargh! What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?
Organization: k-k00l W4r3z, Ltd.
	<nyikos.725127273@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
	<PATRICK.92Dec23122944@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
	<1992Dec24.175906.2580@rotag.mi.org>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 20:21:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.175906.2580@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

 In article <PATRICK.92Dec23122944@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
 >In article <nyikos.725127273@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
 >
 >>}  (But keep asking Keegan,
 >>}though, if your BBS tends to crash when you ask him.  That can't be all bad
 >>}for us.)
 >
 >   Me, I'm hoping it'll cause Keegan's BBS to crash.
 >
 >The last time I looked, crd.ge.com wasn't a BBS.  

   Okay, "overgrown BBS with pretensions of positive corporate value" then...

Sorry, kebbin, but we're not interested in your opinion of what it is --
crd.ge.com isn't a BBS.  You obviously know the difference, but conveniently
ignore it just so you can have an excuse, however slight, to flame someone.

   These days, most of Keegan's drivel comes from rpi.edu anyway, schmuck. I 
   guess the management at crd.ge.com finally started noticing a drop in 
   productivity (?) (Although, as always, I have to wonder whether such a
   thing might ever have been in a measurable range in the first place...) 

Hey, if you want to believe that, that's your problem.  Of course, seeing
the amount of time you spend dribbling all over certain newsgroups, one has
to wonder if the same thing couldn't be said about a certain site named
cfc.com... 

(At least I have an excuse, today.  I'm at work.)


--
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. 

     "Can't have everything.  Where would you put it?" -- Steven Wright
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush )
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Organization: UCLA Dept of Astronomy
Date: 1 Jan 93 09:34:47 PST

In article <1992Dec31.004742.10096@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
># Besides, you could look at it in a completely economic way:  in societies
># where capital punishment is executed quickly and consistently for murder
># the number of murders that are thus prevented by this effective deterent
># greatly outnumber the number of executions.  Even in american, where
># capital punishment is in reality hardly a fact, the numbers are about
># equal.  Just ask any law enforcement official.  I was told directly by
># Gates' former assistant chief that this is true in LA.
>
>Aaiiieee!!!
>
>This guy gets my vote for Most Wiggy Conservative Screwhead on Usenet
>for the month of December.

A very intelligent and mature response on your part 
of course.  What is your point?  If
it is to say that this is a stupid argument, then you miss my point.  I
would agree.  I was just mentioning this because some people actually
argue this issue with just this point (actually, I think that this does
add weight to the fact that capital punishemnt should be used, but I
would not consider it a primary argument).  If your point was to argue 
whether or not this is true then you really should research before you
post because it absolutely is.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52706 alt.flame:17326
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: More Bare-Fased Lies from TSAKC:
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 15:56:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.183725.7011@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:

}Does "TSAKC" do anything besides fabricating "net reputations"?

If you have to ask, you probably don't really want to know.  Its
kinda like asking the price of a yacht...

}I haven't really seen any pro-choice arguments from them,  
}with perhaps the exception of Galen Hekhuis.  

I don't speak for them.  I do, however, speak for the unborn, dead,
yet-to-be-conceived, g(G)[h]od[d](ess), and a host off others,
all on a convenient payment plan.  Some do pay up front, however.

}Most of the
}others, like Susan Garvin, James Keegan, and Patrick Humphrey,
}seem to spend all their time attacking other people. 

I think that someone said that when all you have is a hammer everything
in the world looks like a nail...

}Perhaps
}those are the "entrance requirements" into TSAKC -- you must
}spend a majority of your time fabricating "net reputations". 

No, the entrance requirements involve small animals and...
Sorry, I can't say anymore about it.

}Hey Galen Hekhuis, you better get busy, or else you might 
}get kicked out!!

Never.  They know if they ever did that I would hunt them down
and cut them up.  Even if they were trees.  On your property
too.  Or I might just watch TV.  You can never tell...


--
       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...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Followup-To: misc.test
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 17:27:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.133627.29765@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> >> = (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> >>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> Right. You wouldn't want to be caught calling abortionists fascists.  The
>> pro-abortionist-leaning faction of Garvin and her admirers would disown 
>> you.  Calling an abortionist a fascist is even worse than calling a
>> Planned Parenthood member who lies to a rape victim a fascist.

> I left in all the extra attributions to show that Susan Garvin
> was not, at least for the three postings preceding the one I
> quote, a part of this thread.  Yet Nyikos cannot resist telling
> lies and attempting flames of her here.  

Oh please do come down off your moral high-horse, pee-wee. 
Susan Garvin and her admirers, as Mr. Nyikos puts its, have
repeatedly flamed and insulted posters in threads where
these posters were not involved.  To criticize Mr. Nyikos
for doing something which you and Susan Garvin have done
ad nauseum is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy.

> Dean Kaflowitz


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 01:29:31 GMT

In article <nyikos.724977400@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

> [... good stuff on human development regretfully deleted ...]

I liked your references; mine aren't nearly as broad in scope. 
I thought you might be interested in the following quote; note 
the explicit comparisons between embryonic/fetal and postnatal 
movements.

  "Fetal behavior includes movements and behavioral states,
   which are sleep and ``wakefulness.''  They can be studied
   in the undisturbed intra-uterine environment.  Movements
   can be discerned by ultrasound in the embryonic period,
   and throughout the fetal period.  As is shown by electron
   microscopy, little neural structure is necessary to generate
   movements.  The first movements are detected at 5 to 6 weeks
   and consist of extension or flexion of the neck and the
   thoracic region.  More complex movements follow within
   a few days and form co-ordinated patterns that depend on
   the structural maturation of the nervous system.  Early
   movements, however, require only a minimal synaptic density
   on the motor neurons.  Embryonic movements resemble post-
   natal motor patterns and include startles, general movements,
   hiccups, isolated limb movements, and head rotation.  Other
   features, such as breathing movements, yawning, sucking, 
   and swallowing, begin later during trimester 1.  All motor 
   patterns appear to be present by the beginning of trimester 2.
   Reflex and spontaneous movements probably begin simultaneously.
   Fetal and postnatal movements are strikingly similar.

   Neural functions form a continuum from prenatal to
   postnatal life.  Moreover, prenatal neural functions,
   far from being limited to a few primitive reflexes,
   ``are already complex mechanisms, based on endogenously
   generated and co-ordinated motor patterns'' (Prechtl)."

   _Human embryology and teratology_, Wiley-Liss, 1992,
   pg. 278--279.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Date: 31 Dec 92 00:47:42 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
# Besides, you could look at it in a completely economic way:  in societies
# where capital punishment is executed quickly and consistently for murder
# the number of murders that are thus prevented by this effective deterent
# greatly outnumber the number of executions.  Even in american, where
# capital punishment is in reality hardly a fact, the numbers are about
# equal.  Just ask any law enforcement official.  I was told directly by
# Gates' former assistant chief that this is true in LA.

Aaiiieee!!!

This guy gets my vote for Most Wiggy Conservative Screwhead on Usenet
for the month of December.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``Man has not a single right which is
| J H Woodyatt              |  the product of anything but might.''
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |                           -- Mark Twain
+---------------------------+  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Organization: Clark University
Date: 23 DEC 92 20:54:52 GMT

In a previous article, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>In <22DEC92.16592843@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
> 
>>Do you think that non-smokers who understand the risks involved should not 
>>be allowed to make their own decision and choose to use RU-486?
> 
>Your question has a counterfactual assumption in it, which renders it
>purely rhetorical.
> 
> [repost about associated risks deleted to save space]

I read that the first time it was posted.  Again I ask, if women understand
the risks of RU-486 (I don't believe there is a conspiracy to hide the info), 
shouldn't they be allowed to make their own decision to use it?  There are
dangerous risks associated with smoking, eating high fat food, driving, etc 
- do you think these things should be banned?  

>>  Have they looked into adopting any of the 
>>150,000-200,000 orphaned and abandons BORN children from Romania?
> 
>Funny, some of them went over there and for some unknown reason paid
>good money to adopt children who were living with their natural parents.
> 
>Could it be that those figures you just gave are almost as inflated
>as the 60,000 dead that Ceausescu was charged with when the kangaroo
>court convicted him of genocide and had him executed?  [I believe
>the final figure was in the low hundreds.]

I got these figures from an article in the American Journal of Public Health, 
October 1992, volume 82, issue 10, pages 1328-1331.  The authors of this 
article got their data from _Report of a UNICEF Programme for 
Institutionalized Children in Romania_.  They reported that "shortly after the 
revolution approximately 150,000-200,000 children were in institutional care". 

You didn't answer my question about why you feel rape victims should be forced 
to provide children for couples who want to adopt.

>>[ramblings about Susan and Keith deleted]
> 
>A truly Garvinesque deletion.

What is that supposed to mean?  Your problems with Susan and Keith have 
nothing to do with me or the issues discussed in this post, so I deleted them.

>I used to think Heather was a cut above the talk.abortion inner
>circle of women (no pro-lifer need apply) headed by Ms. Regard and
>including such notables as Garvin, Mills, McCabe, Birmingham, and Adolf,
>but I see I was wrong.

This actually sounds like a compliment...

>Peter Nyikos

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: t.a. FAQ (part 3 of 3)
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:27:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.171914.12814@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>> Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
>>>> the term of pregnancy.

>>> Dougie just can't stop lying about this.  Perhaps we should add the
>>> refutation of his lies to the FAQ?

>> You mean you're going to add more falsehoods to the ones
>> that are already in the FAQ? :-)

> Yes, we'd probably have to include your falsehoods in order to refute them.

Are you saying that the following quote from a law professor
at Georgetown University is a "falsehood"?  

  "The final stage of pregnancy under Roe v. Wade occurs after the
   fetus becomes viable[4]. After viability, the state could regulate
   or prohibit abortions unless they were ``necessary, in appropriate
   medical judgement'', to preserve the life or health of the woman.
   This standard must be read, however, in light of the Court's
   decision the same day in Doe v. Bolton, that clinical judgement
   ``may be exercised in light of all factors -- physical, emotional,
   psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the
   well-being of the patient[5]. Thus, the Court nominally allowed
   the state to prohibit post-viability abortions except in apparently
   limited cases, but it actually defined the limitation in a way
   that bars the state from prohibiting such abortions if physicians
   are willing to perform them."

   [4] 410 U.S. at 163-164
   [5] 410 U.S. 179 (1973)

   Mark Tushnet, "The Supreme Court on Abortion: A Survey",
   Abortion, Medicine, and the Law, Third Edition, 1986, 
   pp. 162
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 05:35:53 GMT

Doug Holtsinger (dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec21.022535.23109@news.stolaf.edu>
: cjohnson@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Carrie L Johnson) writes:
:
: > IF YOU DON'T LIKE ABORTION, DON'T HAVE ONE!
:
: And if you don't like slavery, don't own a slave.

Bad analogy.  Slaves are people and deserve human rights.  The fetus is not, 
IMNSHO, a person.

:
:
: > "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the opressor; it must be
: > demanded by the opressed"
: >                 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his book _Why We Can't Wait_
:
: Nice quote.
-- 
Mike McAngus 			 | Let the raucous sleigh bells ringle   
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | Hail our dear old fried Chris Kringle |Tom
The Truth is still the Truth	 | Driving his reindeer across the sky   |Lehrer
Even if you choose to ignore it. | Don't stand underneath when they fly by. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Followup-To: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:15:05 GMT

J H Woodyatt (bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com) wrote:
: rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
: # Besides, you could look at it in a completely economic way:  in societies
: # where capital punishment is executed quickly and consistently for murder
: # the number of murders that are thus prevented by this effective deterent
: # greatly outnumber the number of executions.  Even in american, where
: # capital punishment is in reality hardly a fact, the numbers are about
: # equal.  Just ask any law enforcement official.  I was told directly by
: # Gates' former assistant chief that this is true in LA.
: 
: Aaiiieee!!!
: 
: This guy gets my vote for Most Wiggy Conservative Screwhead on Usenet
: for the month of December.
: 

Riddle me this, batman!  How many executions in the US since 1930?
3500.


: 
: -- 
: +---------------------------+  ``Man has not a single right which is
: | J H Woodyatt              |  the product of anything but might.''
: | bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |                           -- Mark Twain
: +---------------------------+
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Equal rights
Date: 1 Jan 93 21:23:58 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1298@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>You've involved a third person.  I want to see support for a woman's
>right to have her biological child with only the help of a willing
>SO.  Otherwise, things wouldn't be exactly equal.

That reminds me....  Let me clarify, using your clarifications as well.

Where's the support for a woman's right to have her biological child
with the help of a willing SO of the opposite sex, and without a third
party also having a parental claim on the child?

There.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion