HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  3 Sep 92 16:22:21 GMT

In <1992Sep2.223616.17088@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715464590@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu 
>(Peter Nyikos) writes:

>}   ...but a fetus is not part of her body...

>Just when you think you have things figured out.  Doggone it Peter,
>where do you suppose those little buggers are?

You know the answer as well as I do. That's not the issue.
>--
>       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 

Would you say you are a part of your hang gliding harness?

Peter Ny.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:41:39 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

In article <1992Sep1.185819.29967@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> In <1992Sep1.022621.15823@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
->    (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >

-> >hmmmm. bill overpeck told me earlier today that it
-> >was prejudicial to suggest that someone seek
-> >psychiatric help when i suggested that DODie do so.
-> 
-> Not true.  I said that your implication was
-> prejudicial, as your comments were obviously
-> insincere

you're mistaken, bill. i would be pleased if the lad
got help.

i hope you don't feel too badly about having made this
mistake.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: We gotta do what we gotta do...
Summary: Vern, what's these dead minners doin' on my pizza pie? 
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:17:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.190820.16248@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:
>
>>> Why didn't we all get immediate wind of Domino's efforts and start buying
>>> their pizza?
>
>> If you ever got wind of a Domino's pizza, you'd understand why
>> nobody was buying.  It wasn't politics.  They make (or at least
>> made - haven't had one in years) the worst pies going.
>
>Domino's Pizza serves some of the most vile conglomerations of dough, cheese
>and tomato sauce I've ever tasted.  We have a Pizza Hut Delivery just a
>few doors down from the neighborhood Planned Parenthood, but most of our
>business goes to the locally owned Hearthside Pizza, with homemade sauce
>and real Wisconsin cheese.  They're kitty-corner from the PP.

I think the best succinct comment about the quality of life at Domino's was
made on the infamous Backpage in the Rice Thresher a couple of years ago:
"Domino's can deliver their pizzas via fax -- with no change in taste."
The location that serves our neighborhood here in Sharpstown is a good
incentive to switch to Pizza Hut -- it's edible, it's much better, and it's
only three blocks away from the apartment.  More than once, Domino's drivers
couldn't figure out the complexities of navigating a whole 1.4 miles away
from their store -- which suggests they were using pro-lifers for the
delivery crews, since they'd naturally be from anywhere *but* Houston and
thus be completely unfamiliar with the area...:-)

>ObAnti-Right-To-Lie:  Now that we've 'caught wind' of Domino's efforts, _I_
>will make every effort to avoid their products and boo the Domino's Pizza
>Racing Team at Indy car races. :-)

Just don't throw one of their pies at any of them.  Talk about assault with
a deadly weapon...

-- 
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. 

                  All wiyht, rho sritched mg keg tops awound?
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:38:48 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug26.180056.16768@menudo.uh.edu>, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu
(MILLER, JIMMY A.) wrote:
> 
> In <17gbdiINNtc@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com writes:
> 
> >  I don't give a damn what information she uses.
> 
>   Then you are a fool.  It should be complete and accurate.

I agree, Jim.

I think any woman who wants an abortion should be required to get a degree
in obstetrics and gynecology first.

Semper fish, Jim-bo!

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Third party request
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 02:34:28 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  <Btx4r8.D50.2@cs.cmu.edu>  garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> Holtsinger claims that a law currently being enforced in
> Pennsylvania cannot be enforced.  Can someone explain his
> reasoning to me, please?

He apparently believes that a lie repeated sufficiently often acquires a
ring of truth.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:41:16 GMT
Keywords: From: Decay@ no longer works, Susan!  

In article <1992Aug31.154425.16868@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> Oh, yeah, by the way, Suzie Q, new things've been happenin' round
> here. It's called  
> 
> 	/decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)/h:j 

Considering how you're afraid to even read my postings, you
ought not to claim you haven't "run away" from anybody, as
you did not long ago.

Yes, I know he won't see this.  I guess when he's not busy
pretending to be a robot or an airplane, he pretends he's
an ostrich.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 21:32:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.165041.11734@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
|> 
|> The beliefs that would be legislated (and enforced on others) would be the
|> belief that abortion is not murder.  In other words, it would enforce a
|> belief about when a child becomes a human being.
|>

The legislation (Freedom of Choice Act) says nothing about the status of
the fetus or what abortion is/is not. It simply prevents the state from
restricting adult females from aborting a pre-viable fetuses.

It does not prevent the state from restricting/denying abortion funding,
passing parental consent laws for minors, restricting the abortion of
post-viable fetuses. As it does not require individuals to have an
abortion, nor to approve of abortion, it does not legislate a belief,
nor is any belief enforced on an other.

Perhaps you are confusing this with the Human Life Ammendment, which does
legislate a belief as to the status of a fetus and the definition of
abortion.
 
|> The people that are being forced to have abortions now, are the fathers
|> who have no legal recourse to stop a woman from murdering their child.

Then perhaps it is the fathers that should be more
careful as to when, where and with whom they have
sexual relations. Remember the pro-life solution
to preventing unwanted abortions...abstenence. 

-- 
--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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Five questions for Doug Holtsinger
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 16:15:41 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  <Bu24Fn.9FB.2@cs.cmu.edu>  garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> In article <1992Sep04.123617.25948@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
> #In  <Bu14nJ.LK.2@cs.cmu.edu>  garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> ## In article <1992Sep02.233517.35825@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com wri
> ##
> ## [massive deletions]
> ##
> ## #Larry Margolis, wondering why Dishonest Doug relies on the description
> ## #of a "pro-abort" regarding the organization, but then questions the
> ## #veracity of the organization's facts on the grounds that it's a
> ## #"pro-abortion organization".
> ##
> ## DOD never answered this, did he?
> ##
> ## I wonder why.
> #
> #Probably for the same reason that he never answered as to whether you
> #satisfactorily demonstrated a crucial difference between a late-term
> #fetus and a neo-nate.  And he never answered why he was claiming that
> #"only 3 doctors perform third-trimester abortions" was unsupported, in
> #the very same post in which he was saying he didn't like the source of
> #that support.  And he never answered why he has such problems with the
> #beliefs of Judaism.
>
> He also never answered why he continues to claim that Roe
> guarantees abortion "on demand throughout the entire nine months
> of pregnancy"  even though the decision specifically says
> otherwise.
>
> Well, DOD, can you answer any of these questions?

Of course he *can*, but he won't, because he'd have to admit that he's
wrong.  (Hmmm... maybe he can't after all...  Have to consult with Bill on
this.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:35:39 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
Organization: Murasami Labs


 Steve Novak wrote:

> I feel sorry for any woman dumb enough to fall for a walking time bomb
> like you, Will.

My goodness, aren't we the epitomy of sympathy.

K'Char 

Ps. Sorry for dripping sarcasm on your keyboards.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Illegal abortions (was Re: Only God Can Help Us!
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:29:27 GMT

In article <24534@oasys.dt.navy.mil> 
bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

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

>>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

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

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

> I think you are probably right. A free clue though, most of the pro-life
> crowd, at least the most vocal of them, are also for restricting contra-
> ceptives. So the comparison is quite appropiate, don't you agree? 

No, I don't agree that the number of deaths from illegal abortion in
Brazil can be carried over to this country.  First you would have to show 
that the US population would agree to restrict access to contraceptives, 
and I don't think that's likely to happen.  Secondly, you would have to 
explain the discrepancy between the number of deaths from illegal abortion 
in Brazil and the number of deaths in the US before Roe v. Wade.  As I 
posted earlier, the CDC reported 39 deaths from illegal abortion in 1972.  
 
>Ron


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34112 alt.abortion.inequity:3345
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:27:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: FIRST, we have to FIND it.  THEN we can organize. . .

In article <1992Aug27.045340.13162@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.171409.12451@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>Turn it around.  Explain (without the use of any belief system) how an
>>abortion is objectively a responsbile decision.
>>
>>Different belief systems, different beliefs (but not always).
>
>I don't think it is an unreasonable request to ask that those
>who are trying legislate what actions I may take with my own body
>base that legislation on something more than "because I say so."

?????  But that is JUST what YOU are doing.  You are trying to make
the right to abortion a law on the basis of "because I say so".

You DO NOT occupy the moral high ground here.  You too are trying to
force your belief system on others.

>If you are not trying to enact legislation that would limit
>the availability of abortion, than please ignore my request, for
>I wouldn't dream of trying to play the role of Thought Police and
>dictate what people must believe.

Of COURSE not.  All you want to do is try to force people to believe
that a fetus is not a human being, and should not have human rights.

>Sarah McCabe

I have as much right to enforce my belief system on you, as you do
to enforce yours on me.

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
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, 26 Aug 92 01:34:45 GMT


[Sorry for the delay, folks...]

In article <1992Aug20.202812.12068@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>I was wondering if there would be any interest in a moderated abortion
>newsgroup.  There are so many personal attacks and insults thrown around
>on talk.abortion that I thought it might be appropriate to have a newsgroup 
>dedicated to calm and serious discussions of the issues.  

This is a joke, right?

>
>The name would be something like "talk.abortion.moderated", and it would
>serve alongside talk.abortion as an alternate newsgroup.  No personal
>attacks, insults, or flames would be permitted on the newsgroup.  Everything
>else would be accepted unconditionally.  People who had their articles
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Right.  Sure.  Uh-huh....

>rejected could always post them to talk.abortion. 
>
>The big problem, of course, would be the selection of the moderator(s).
>I sincerely believe that the following posters could serve as unbiased
>moderators (this is just what I thought of offhand, there could be others,
>but don't feel insulted if you're accidently left out):
>
>  Don Porter
Ok.  I could accept that (but read below...)

>  Eric Rescorla
Ok.  I could accept that (but read below...)
>  Elizabeth Bartley
Ditto.

>  Suzanne Forgach
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

,
>  Adrienne Regard
Cool.  Go it, Adrienne!

>  Muriel Nelson
Same as Adrienne.  Go For It!

>  Steve Adams
He is intelligent, and level headed, so ok.

>  Steve Chaney
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>  Tim Buckley
Who?

>  Kevin Darcy
This has *GOT* to be some sort of sick April Fools' Day joke.

>  Peter Nyikos
Lithium, Doug.  Take your Lithium.

>  Richard Pitts
What is this supposed to be?  t.a.m, or talk.religion.moderated?

>  Jimmy Miller
Nope.  Sorry.

>  Wes Orr
Dude!

>
>Naturally I eliminate myself from consideration so as not to give the
>wrong impression. :-) 

Sorry, Doug.  You can't give the "wrong impression" when people know the truth
about you.

>
>What do people think of the idea?

What?  Where's Ste Franklin?  Kevin C. Welch?  Why was Kevin Welch left off
your list?

Now:  Notice how the "pro-lifers" aren't even happy with wanting to outlaw
abortion, now they want to outlaw talk.abortion...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=I am not "pro-life"... - Doug Holtsinger in article                          =
=                                          <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu>   =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: re: Sex Sacrifice, and the USA
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:32:50 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep1.164017.18711@menudo.uh.edu>, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> In <1992Sep1.142942.10219@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov writes:
> 
>>And the only 100% reliable way to ensure this is with the option of abortion.
>>Sure there are precautions that she can take to reduce the chance of 
>>pregnancy, but not a single one of them, including abstinence, is 100%
>>reliable.                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Dan King
> 
>   Ahhhhh, Dan?  Could you maybe elaborate on this?  If abstinence = no inter-
> course, and there's no technological or religious miracles involved, how is
> this possible?  I mean, if the sperm and the egg don't get together...how
> do they get together?

Consider this:  Horny Harry and Hot Henrietta don't want to conceive.
Dr. Everythingbealright says "Not a problem!  Just abstain from
intercourse!"

How long will abstainence work for Horny Harry and Hot Henrietta?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: :(  mcbeanb@brandonu.ca dying
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 29 Aug 92 12:38:17 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

     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.

Brian McBean
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Time Poll
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:41:50 GMT

From article by jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle):
> In article Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>>As published in the August 31, 1992 issue:
>>
>>Which position best represents your views about abortion:
>>
>>A woman should be able to get an
>>abortion no matter what the reason             49%
>>
> 
> Count me right here.
> 
> The reason is NONE of my business, none of YOUR business. 


It certainly IS the unborn child's business.
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Only God Can Help Us!
Date: 26 Aug 1992 08:21:40 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

>> Cameron Kaszas
>>it is inconceivable TO ME that it is God's will for any abortion 
>>to ever take place. 


I dunno about that.  See, with millions upon millions of 'em occuring
every year (just *think* of all the fornication, folks!), I'd guess,
from my limited understanding of the various claims about "God" and his
ability to enforce his will,
                             That abortion is very MUCH 'God's will'.

Adrienne Regard

PS I'm only doing this to annoy Jim.  Hi, Jim.  (-:


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Keywords: Reinforcements
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 02:35:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.140639.6280@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.234358.9016@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>|> That's one good principle by which abortion could be banned: Overthrow Roe
>|> vs. Wade (which would mean the fetus would be a legal person again), and
>|> make abortion an act of child neglect & endangerment.
>
>A fetus has never been a legal person.

What do you call it when the abortion laws were pushed from
quickening, to conception, back in the 1860's-1870's? They did it
because the fetus was protectable by law, and not because fetuses
were as rare as bald eagles. 

Does the word PERSONHOOD ring a bell somewhere in that legal process? 

>Also, how do you protect doctor-patient confidentiality and a person's
>right to protection against self-incrimination if abortion is banned?

Confidentiality: Confidentiality is irrelevant if a doctor prescribes
drugs that are illegal and s/he is caught by other personnel. 

Fifth Amendment/self-incrimination: Murderers generally have a Fifth
Amendment right not to self-incriminate themselves. Even if charged
with murder, illegal abortionists would have a 5th Amendment right not
to testify against themselves in court.  

Consistency is the word we're looking for here.


=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|                                                                           |
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
=============================================================================
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. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: People Concerned Until Childbirth
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:06:13 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes to susan garvin:
-> I also wish that you would display the same
-> compassion towards the children who are going inside
-> the clinic to be killed.

can you name one chile who walked into a clinic and was
killed?
-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion