HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Supreme Court exceeded its authority in Roe v. Wade
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:55:42 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec23.054752.13697@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#I recently ran across a stunning quote concerning 
#the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade:

Stunning?

You and Suzanne are easily stunned.

#  "... 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

Since Roe has effectively been overturned, I can't understand 
the Reverend's obsession with it.  Can anyone else?

#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.

Oh, just go ahead and make it all up, DODie.  It's the holiday
season, after all.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Date: 21 Dec 92 07:10:53 GMT

     Yes, its all clear to me, because infants are simply helpless parasites,
lets kill them along with the unborn.  (moral, if it isn't cute or make cute 
noises, its not protected).  And while we are looking at the philosophical 
definition of a person, grandpa is getting senile and probabbly just doesn't
make the ticket any more, axe him too.  And that drug addict, they can't be
living a very fullfilling life (probabbly has a real self-esteem problem too), 
nuke that sucker too.  In fact, lets give psycho analysis exams to all 6th 
graders and perform pre-emptive extraction on those that have a high risk of 
becoming a threat to society.  This world will be a better place and the 
rights of those who remain will be protected.  And if you don't agree, we 
have a way to adjust your attitude (gimme that deer rifle).

                               Craig
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Susan sinks to a new low. [Was: Meet P...]
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: 28 Dec 92 21:13:58 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Summary: my hat's off

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

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

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

Susan,
who wonders when Nyikos will post his apology to Adrienne for
lying about her
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: information for dodie
Date: 28 Dec 92 22:55:30 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@crd.ge.com
Organization: "T.S.A.K.C"

In article <1200@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
|>In article <2jz2n_m@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
|>#dodie, i think you might want to visit the restrooms of
|>#a train station in a middle- large-sized city.
|>#name-flaming susan garvin with "shit" is so, well
|>#uncreative. you might, if you follow my advice, you'll
|>#learn some new words you can use. just read anything 
|>#written on the wall.don't worry; no one will
|>#tell mum on you. plus, those new words will provide all
|>#those who laugh at you with more merriment.
|>
|>Hey, I thought that he'd shown some progress - he was talking
|>about "snots" to Patrick just a little while before.  

perhaps he felt he could name-flame you with "shit" because you're
a woman.

|>He's slipping in another sense, though.  He's revealing more about
|>himself than I think he means to - it'll be fun to see what he'll
|>admit to next.

i've been wondering if he just doesn't want to be abused;
something like kebbin?

                  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Darcy and viability as important dividing line.
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 22:19:30 GMT

In article <34637@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>In article <1992Dec25.042418.4549@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
>(Kevin Darcy) writes: 
>
>>No, Muriel, any human organism which _could_ function outside of the womb
>>is by definition "capable" of bodily autonomy. This is, in fact, why 
>>viability is such an all-important dividing line.
>
>Please explain the relevance of this dividing line to abortion.

It marks the line between where the death of the fetus is strictly NECESSARY 
versus where it is usually OPTIONAL, in order to preserve the BA rights of 
the pregnant woman. 

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Unborn Children (Was: reconciling OT/NT)
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 07:53:42 GMT

<nyikos.725130997@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
><1992Dec22.064638.16320@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><nyikos.724980092@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>><1992Dec18.073137.15851@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) :
>>>><1992Dec18.003658.13726@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) :
...
>>>>OK.  All us Atheists will now stop forcing death on unborn children.
>>>>Since there are no such things as 'unborn children' it should be pretty
>>>>easy to do.  Now then, can we get back to the abortion issue?
>>>
>>>Check out _The Secret Life of the Unborn Child_, by Thomas Verny and
>>>John Kelly, Delta Books, 1988.  I'll be sending your ex-girfriend Beth
>>>some excerpts from this book.  Since the authors buy into the Dominick
>>>Purpura theory of timing of consciousness, she should have a great time
>>>with the book, and maybe even order it for herself.  It comes in 
>>>paperback for just over $10.
>
>List price on my copy, ordered less than two months ago, is $10.95 US
>and $13.95 Canadian.
>
>>>Also by Thomas Verny (with Pamela Weintraub): _Nurturing the Unborn Child_.
>>>Sorry, I don't have any publisher info on this one.
>
>>Works of fiction do not make mythical creatures real, Peter.
>
>Of the former book, R.D. Laing wrote: "A startling account of recent work
>in this field...timely, balanced, useful."
>
>Not the kind of review one makes for a work of fiction.

"Fiction" was perhaps a little strong.  Just because someone uses the term
"child" to refer to a fetus in utero doesn't mean it is a child.

>Sure, there are bits and pieces of fiction in it, like consciousness
>beginning at six months when the available evidence points to a much 
>earlier point in time, but it is also full of objective information on
>actual experiments run by eminently qualified researchers. 

It has gross errors like the one you point out yet you believe the other
parts of it?

>>>>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of [...] Beth 
>[...]								       ^^^^
>>>Beth, did you give Gordon permission to call himself your "ex-boytoy" as 
>>>well as your ex-boyfriend?
>
>>I'm sure I can dig up the post somewhere, and I hereby give Beth, and all
>>my ex-girlfriends permission to use me as their ex-toy anytime.  So there.
>
>That's not the point of my question.  Beth, what's your side of the story?

Gee, Beth's not answering. BTW, what's it to you?  Are you offering to
defend her too?  What's this apparently overwhelming need you have to
stick your nose into other peoples business?


Gordon
-- 
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: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Embryos as Property?
Date: 22 Dec 92 09:28:53 CST

In article <nyikos.724959333@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>
>2. If not, would you say he is a victim of institutional brainwashing
>as to what are the acceptable ways of referring to women?  (BTW later
>on he said "chick" = "hot babe", another term which I consider to be
>evidence of sexism on the part of the person using it.)
>
Language is an evolving entity, Mr. Nyikos.  (Hmmm.  If
it's not a person, wonder whose property it is.  The Queen's?)
In any case, you will be pleased to hear that the term,
'hot babe', is now gender neutral.  I have heard the term
in colloquial usage by young females in reference to young
males for about a year now.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Another long night at the keyboard in Raleigh
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 05:01:03 GMT

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes to dodie:
->Why do you persist in believing that there are other people 
->as twisted as you are when there's been no indication that
->this is true?  Does it scare you more when you face the fact
->that you're the only one?  What does your therapist say?

i suspect that dodie hasn't seen a therapist in the
last few weeks. that would explain the erosion of the
superficial rationality which had appeared in a limited
way in some of his posts. now it looks like he's
backsliding.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Meet Operation Rescue
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
	<1992Dec23.051627.12920@ncsu.edu>
	<CORWIN+.92Dec23123233@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU>
	<1992Dec23.232957.10233@ncsu.edu>
	<1992Dec24.171908.15324@wdl.loral.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 20:50:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.171908.15324@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:

   dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
   # corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
   # >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
   # 
   # >>   Excerpts from:
   # >>      "Abortion foes stereotyped, some in the media believe",
   # >>      by David Shaw, Los Angeles Times, July 2, 1990,
   # >>      Reprinted in the Congressional Record, Oct 9, 1990 S 14817
   # 
   # > What is the point?
   # 
   # Ms. Garvin posted a one-sided and biased account of a woman's 
   # encounter with Operation Rescue.  In response, I posted another 
   # viewpoint of the group.  Sorry if that confused you.

   Speaking of ugly, biased rumors of Operation Rescue...

   I got word last night through a close friend in a position to receive
   such news that Operation Rescue is planning to seige a hundred or so
   cities in the middle of January.

   He also said that (and this is the part I have trouble believing -- I
   can chalk it up to paranoia if its wrong) they plan to branch out to
   more overt anti-gay activity.  I couldn't get him to be more specific,
   but he's promised to get me a copy of the press release.

   Does anyone here on the net know anything about O.R.'s schedule for
   January?  Is this just an annual revival meeting thing, or are they
   planning on coming out to play?

I don't know, but it doesn't make sense to me that they'd go after that many
urban areas at the same time, unless they're planning some major deception
to get bystanders involved in unwitting support of their agenda.  (I have a
feeling, though, that Houston will be high on the list of targets -- Randy
Randall is still pissed about not being allowed to act like the little
maniac he is by District Juudge Eileen O'Neill.  If the OR clowns want to
get shut out again like they did four months ago, though, I'll just have to
be out there defending clinics again, where I'm needed...)



--
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
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Mark Cochran and me on fetal tissue, Cycle 2
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:14:43 GMT

I was going to post "Cycle 2" in my e-mail exchange with Mark Cochran
yesterday, but I wasn't able to locate my response to the message
of his that I posted in Cycle 1.  I still can't find it, but much if
not all of it is still intact in his rejoinder, so I am displaying that below.
[See how generous I am, letting you see his instant rebuttal? :-)]

Here is the message, minus .signature:

From: merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu (Merlin the Magician)
Message-Id: <9212150431.AA19163@eddie.ee.vt.edu>
Subject: Re: Lost Boy bugged by fetal tissue transplants.
To: nyikos@milo (Peter Nyikos)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 23:31:09 EST
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Status: OR

> Oops, looks like I mailed you a copy of my post and this is what you are
> responding to.  Anyway, I certainly give you permission to post your reply,
> and if you do find the post showing up on the boards, please let me know.
> My netserver has received nothing in the past 105 hours and so I am "flying
> blind": even the old posts that show up in my index have all expired.
> 
I also don't save my mail unless there's a good reason, so I don't
have the message I replied to. If it shows up on the net, I'll respond
again.

> Let me comment on something you wrote in your earlier message:
> 
>  These fetal tissue cultures will be
> derived from fetal tissues, if they are ever developed. As long as
> funding for these projects is cut off by the federal govt, though, I
> would say it is not terribly likely that the techniques will be
> perfected in this country. There are already several european centers
> far ahead of us in this field.
> 
> To which I reply:
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, funding for this aspect of fetal tissue
> research has never been curtailed.  The only things for which funding
> was curtailed, as far as I know, were (1) experimentation on live
> aborted human fetuses and (2) fetal tissue transplants.  And even (2)
> is about to have its funding restored by executive order, courtesy of
> Bill Clinton.  
> 
(1) There is no such thing as a "live aborted human fetus".
(2) If we don't do the experimental tissue transplants, to demonstrate
a need for the cultures, what possible reason whould there be to
develope the technology to provide the tissue cultures?
(3) Where do you think we get the tissue for the cultures originally
if not from aborted fetuses?
(4) Hurray for Bill Clinton.


-- 
	Mark Cochran			merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
	onyx@loligo.cc.fsu.edu		merlin@any.abermud.anywhere
________________________________End of letter_____________________________

A very quick comment, with my rebuttal to come in Cycle 3 and later:
"aborted" is correct if one includes spontaneous abortions, i.e.
miscarriages.  A lot of the tissue obtained in that way is unusable,
but some of it is not.

Oh, and one clarification in re (2): the fact that some fetal tissue
transplants have been done with private funding in the USA is not
contradicted by anything said in Mark's (2) or any of the above.

Peter Nyikos
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: ding Ding, Planet earth calling
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 12:36:51 GMT

steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
] >> = lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
] >>I honestly don't know.  If something were to somehow convince me that fetuses 
] >>aren't human (For example, If someone found a way to prove that the soul 
] >>doesn't enter the body until birth) then I would go back to being pro-choice.
] Catholics believe in ensoulment at birth, according to Pope Pius IX.  If
] you're Catholic...welcome to the pro-choice camp, Loren!
] 

First off I am pleased that loren has decided to follow
his convictions and become prochoice.


Now onto the really gruelling schedule of questions:

1. has anyone been able to time the periodicity of nykios' newserver
failure, and has anyone suggested an upgrade?

2. Have the Satanic Kult ritualists finally admitted that
its all a part of the Evil Konspirakii and that the whole
thing has been a plot to seperate the lambs from God's 
Flock, and that since folks really do not read their bible
that all this FetalIdolatry is just so much Drek, along
with the EvilAbolitionOfSlavery?

3. Did steve novak really get that date on saturday night,
and why has he not told us about it.

4. keegan - he'll complain if I do not mention him as well.
Is he still in love with darcy?

5. has anyone schedule this years SecretKabalGathering
of the talk.abortion folks who are on the Side of 
Truth, Justice and the American Way? And do we have
to invite those folks from outside the bay area as well,
I mean, well, They are SOOOOOOO WERID!

6. Why is talk.abortion like alt.romance.chat?

7. This Number is REserved, and will be released in
a future upgrade, so DO NOT USE THIS NUMBER! Or your
code will NOT be forward compatible!

8. its getting late.

9. number nine, number nine, number nine.

10. I still think wooodyatt is confused, but not as basly as
cj, who has taken to Basic Black Leathers And strapping 
LARGE MOTORS between her legs, and what ever happened to.....


] C'mon, Nadja; we all believe in ethereal drieux.  BTW, why isn't he prancing
] elf-like around t.a. with rings on his fingers, bells on his toes, chanting
] in his Xmas voice, "Ho ho ho"?
] 
] (Whew.  I do need a holiday. :)


tell me about it.... I keep trying to tell folks 
that we should NOT release 1993 until someone out
there gets us a report from the beta sites....

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Carry On My Wayward Son....
Date: 28 Dec 92 01:29:03 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
]
] No, I said that there's no moral difference between
] a late-term fetus and a newborn infant.  If a woman's
] life were immediately threatened by either a late-term 
] fetus or a newborn infant, I would feel that she would
] be justified in taking human life.
] 
] Doug Holtsinger
 


Do You hold that there is any moral difference between
a nearly dead person an an actually dead person?

ciao
drieux




-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: The Stupidity of Peter Nyikos
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:57:24 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 <nyikos.725576579@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
[massive deletions]
>Note to the uninitiated: Larry Margolis is pro-choice and I don't see
>how anyone could think otherwise.
     ^^^^^^

Anyone that's a talk.abortion regular, that is.  The thread was cross-posted
to a number of newsgroups.

>A feature above that has never been explained to me: certain lines are
>preceded by ~ and others are not.  I hope someone can tell me why.

I explained this to you previously.  Certain news programs contain a bug
which will result in a post containing a From: line in the body, starting
in column 1, to be taken as a new post.  This can cause massive problems,
resulting in hundreds of duplicate copies being posted.

>What is the source of the discrepancies, I wonder?

Editing errors?  What's the difference?  The point remains that Chaney
responded to someone addressing me as though they had been addressing
him.  He was wrong, exactly as Susan described.  Everyone who saw the
original exchange saw this.  All you're doing is making yourself look
like more of a fool.

You posted this under the heading "The Mendacity of Susan Garvin".  The
mendacity was on the part of Chaney when he accused Susan of forgery.
(I'd guess he figured this out eventually, after having his nose rubbed in
it; hence his failure to follow through on his threats.)

Now, we could all tell you that you're mistaken [you're mistaken:  Susan's
right and Chaney's wrong], but you might then accuse us all of mendacity.
We could show you the original posts [I have them], but if you didn't
believe them when Susan posted them, why would you believe them when anyone
else posts them.  It seems that the only solution is for you to find an
archive, dig up the original posts yourself, and satisfy yourself as to the
truth.  Then come back and apologize to everyone you accused of lying
about it.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:25:57 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 <1992Dec30.095751.1789@cs.ucla.edu> gds@york.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.050758.1772@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>Again, there's a difference between a right and a reason for exercising that
>>right.  Her *right* is to control how her body is used.
>
>I am not disputing that right.  I am pointing out that men do not have
>any rights in this situation,

Men have the same rights as do women regarding bodily autonomy.  Since the
fetus isn't growing in the man's body, though, this doesn't help him much.

>If the woman decides to carry the fetus to term, I believe she should
>be able to get financial support from the father.  However, I believe
>he also should have some child support rights, which he does not have,
>either.

Fine.

>>It has been said many times previously in this newsgroup (t.a) that the
>>woman has the right of removal, not the right of destruction.  That the
>>fetus is not capable of surviving on its own at the time of practically
>>all abortions is just too bad for the fetus.
>
>If fetuses could be safely removed, do you agree that the mother and
>father have equal responsibilities to support the fetus/child?

"Could be" and "should be" are two different things.  Personally, if neither
one wants a child, I don't think that first or second trimester fetuses
*should* be saved.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion