HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: And Now, You're A Halfwit!!
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 20:48:10 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


sf>In article <BtwrKA.BLG@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
dk>In <1992Sep1.151316.11437@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
sf>>In article <BtvMtL.22B@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) write

sf>>   Oh now - coincedence? I chose it silly fool. I suppose I should upgrade
sf>>my username, having undergone superpuberty, but I never really got around
sf>>to it. Incedentally, you know I'm 19 Lefty - why the hell won't you answer
sf>>me, and tell me how old you are (sorry, i just remembered to ask this question.
sf>>Been a whil ain't it?) you gonna answer?

dk>So Steve,
dk>maybe you could clear up what the heck you were trying to say here.

sf>Yes, sorry Dan - you see, the drag about sifting through all the bull that
sf>Lefty and I exude, is that you sometimes miss vital points of discourse. One of
sf>these was the question of Lefty's age. Lefty knew exactly what I"m talking
sf>about, but of course, in the process, I left the rest of the alt.flame
sf>audience in the dark. Sorry ol' chap.

You still have not answered the question that your above paragraph left me
with.  I left your original paragraph up there so it can be referred to.  
Now the question is, were you flaming Lefty for not answering a question 
you had forgotten to ask him?  That is the reading I get from your above
paragraph. You say above "sorry, i just remembered to ask this question."
Someone else claims maybe you had asked it before and that`s what you meant
when you said "Been a whil ain't it?".  But when I first read the note I
thought that referred to something to do with Lefty's age.  So again the 
question remains, what the heck are you trying to say in the above
paragraph?  Perhaps you have decided it is better to go for volume than
coherency, but that is going to lead to these type of confusions.

sf> Still, aren't ya a little curious
sf>to know how old Leftie is?

Not even a little bit.  If I ever did get very curious about Lefty's
age I would probably send him an e-mail note asking him what his age 
is along with a comment about why I am curious.  If he refused to answer
my request, I really don't believe I would lose any sleep over it.

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions"
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:35:56 GMT

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
# margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
# #garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
# ## margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
# ##
# ## [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.

He also explicitly refused to answer the direct question of whether,
in his view, there are any cases in which a woman should be permitted
access to abortion.

# Well, DOD, can you answer any of these questions?  

I'm not holding my breath.

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 20:34:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: usa

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
>> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>>>  Whether or not you are celibate isyour choice.  My point being that we
>>>  must begin to accept responsibility for our actions, even if that means 
>>>  accepting responsibility for the failure of contraception.  
>>
>>Please explain (without the use of truth by blatant assertion) why an
>>abortion is not a responsible response to an unwanted pregnancy.
>
>Turn it around.  Explain (without the use of any belief system) how an
>abortion is objectively a responsbile decision.

How's about a simple cost-benefit analysis?  Suppose a woman, 18 years-old,
just graduated from high school and about to enter college, gets pregnant.

If she carries the pregnancy to term, she will certainly miss at least one
term of college.  With less understanding parents, she will more likely be
unable to attend college at all.  Prospects for a future marriage _and_
career will be severely impacted.  The financial costs of carrying a child
to term are also considerable - several thousand dollars at least.

Cost: loss of future earnings, loss of social standing, loss of family support.
Benefit: Gained maturity from being a parent earlier.

If she gets an abortion during the first trimester, it will cost a few
hundred dollars and a weekend of time.  Granted, there will probably be 
one less person in the world, but that would be the case anyway, since
she had no intention of having a child in the first place.

Cost: The price of an abortion.  Guilt.
Benefit: Improved odds of finding the right husband.  Job satisfaction.
	 Improved social and family standing (assuming privacy).

So then, two choices.  Stay in school, learn a profession, and contribute
learned skills to society, or have a child and be constrained to poor paying
jobs.  What's the responsible thing to do?  This is just one scenario, I
can come up with more.

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:55:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.021950.4211@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes to Michael Loomis: 

#I would like to express my strong interest in responding to your 
#defense of infanticide.  I think that Mr. Novak and Ms. Garvin
#would probably not like to see your article posted to the net, 
#and that's why they have been behaving so badly towards you.  

Holtsinger, you're a tiresome liar.  I specifically asked Loomis
to post his opinion on infanticide.  You really should learn
to read.  

I'm rude to Loomis, because like you and your fellow pro-forcers,
he ignores the fact that a pregnant woman is involved in every
pregnancy.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Item for Chaney's study of abortion-adult/child sex link.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:53:25 GMT

In <Btn50M.19M@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>In article <nyikos.714858926@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <BtJxEw.D6z@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jamcdani@zia.ucs.indiana.edu writes:

>>>Here's my proposed response to the statutory rape problem. You can't
>>>have an abortion until you can get pregnant (duh!),
>>
>>Alas, this is incorrect.  I can give you the name of at least one
>>woman who "had an abortion" when not pregnant, and reports of lots more.

>Now I *have* seen everything.  You can give us the name of a woman who "had
>an abortion" -- and you put that phrase in quotes to indicate that it wasn't
>actually an abortion she had -- but then you can seriously argue she *had*
>an abortion even though she wasn't pregnant? 

Her name is Nita Whitten, and she is a former worker at the Fairmount
Center abortion clinic in Dallas, Texas.  You can read about her on 
the post, " `Abortion' on a non-pregnant woman."  I'll post it as soon
as I can after getting through the stack of messages I'm going through.

And I hereby put you on notice not to follow up to any more of my posts
until you either apologize to Chaney for your (possibly virulently)
racist remark, or at least explain to him that you did not mean for
your open-ended threat to be taken as predicting any assault, much less
battery.

Of course I can't prevent you from following up to any of my posts, 
but don't be surprised if I send you another "r" message in retaliation,
a lot less diplomatic than the one I sent you earlier and for which you
put me on notice not to "r" you again.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: aborting females
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 00:03:27 GMT

Dr. Howard, in the summary line of your article, you said
something like "Yes, Dean it is happening here."  I have
not read the articles that you referenced, but from the
abstratcts that you included, it seems as if the articles
are discussing attitudes about sex selection abortions
rather than documenting actual cases.  Did I misunderstand
you?

Susan
From: eris@tc.fluke.COM (Chris Beckmeyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Legal Definition of "Abortion" (SC law)
Keywords: abortion, pregnant, intent, known
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:47:43 GMT
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA

In article <nyikos.715275438@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>3. The words "known to be pregnant" rule out all the usual uses of IUD's
>and "morning after pills."  They also seem to introduce a bizarre loophole:
>If a clinic does not do a pregnancy test, or does a test that comes out a false
>negative and then proceeds with a D&C, it is not doing an abortion in the
>legal sense until the presence of a fetus is discovered.  And if by then
>the fetus has been killed, the "other than...to remove a dead fetus" 
>protects the clinic from prosecution.
>
>Now some of this may be legitimate, but you can imagine an unscrupulous
>clinc bending the rules.  For example, employee A might tell the patient
>she is not pregnant, but is in need of a D&C, all the while knowing that 
>the test came out positive.  Then employee B, an abort/gynecologist,
>might be told simply that the patient needs a D&C...
>

these types of clinics were very common prior to the availability of legal
abortions in the US.  government regulatory agencies being what they are now,
i think it would be difficult to operate one again.

chris
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion:  My Views
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:05:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>So homicide, rape, and theft are acceptable in specific instances where 
>they would improve the functioning of "society"?  

Ummm, capital punishment & taxes?  And note that marital rape is only
now becoming illlegal in the US.

>      "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>

"Neither do I" -- ray@netcom.com

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:24:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.093844.20481@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> cswicego@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Cynthia Swicegood) writes:
>
>
>Abortions are wrong!  There's no difference between a fetus, a baby, and
>an adult, these are just different steps in human development.  People
>say that a fetus isn't anything because it can't survive outside the
>womb, well a baby already born can't survive outside the womb either
>unless someone takes care of him/her and feeds him/her.  You're talking
>about human life, no matter what stage it's at and it's wrong to kill.
>Plain and simple.

Addition: Legal abortion is discrimination. 

Welcome, Cynthia. 
Be seriously aware that pro-aborts will try and slam you off of this
newsgroup with super flaming tactics. 

My assertion couldn't possibly be too far off; these people flamed
one of their own pro-choice friends, named Siren, off of the
newsgroup, and she was their most logical and peace-minded ally.
(Maybe it was because of that, that she got flamed. For her peaceful
attitude, that is.) 

 

=============================================================================
>##       "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
Subject: Re: 1-900-fone-sex  (was: myths about PP or something)
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:33:38 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug27.193058.9512@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article <1992Aug22.130432.2159@brandonu.ca>, by mcbeanb@brandonu.ca: 
>> Masturbation and phone sex are forms of sex.
> 
> 
> Some people might indulge in such activities, 

Really?  You mean to say that you haven't masturbated?  I realize this
is not any of my business, so I'll just assume for the sake of argument.
It really surprises me that there is someone who hasn't masturbated...
Babies play with themselves, and that leads to masturbation.  Hmmm.
How can you please someone else when you don't even please yourself?
I guess I'm just a prude.

> but I would be willing to bet
> that no one in the world would claim he could possibly have lost his virginity
> over the telephone.

Well, no, but virginity is always referring to straight ahead intercourse
which includes penetration, right?  I have a friend who has engaged/been
engaged in oral sex, and he's not sure he's a virgin or not, but he
knows he's had sex...

Anyway, don't knock phone sex til you've tried it (and you don't need a
900 number either!).

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: You be the Judge! II
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:26:06 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug31.210559.7548@ncar.ucar.edu>, kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
> It's 2000 AD, almost all abortions are illegal in the US.
> A woman, 1 month pregnant, seeks & finds someone who provides 
> an illegal abortion.  Unknown to anyone, the fetus was already dead.
> Had she gone to a real doctor, she would have known the fetus 
> was already dead.
> 
> Q1: Does she burn in hell?

Well, isn't thinking about sinning just as bad as the real thing
according to the Bible?  I guess she better repent before her
heart forgets to beat.

> Q2: Does she go to prison for murder?

Doesn't look like it...  She wouldn't go to prison for anything
unless she got caught!

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:27:42 GMT

cswicego@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Cynthia Swicegood) writes:

>You're talking
>about human life, no matter what stage it's at and it's wrong to kill.
>Plain and simple.

Always wrong to kill?  How about the following:

1. War of defense against an agressor

2. Self defense

3. Capital punishment

4. Killing a cruel, despotic ruler (Hitler, Stalin, etc)?

5. Killing Nazi's (or Hitler) to protect Jews from the gas chamber?

Always wrong?  No matter what the circumstances?  Even to save your own
life?

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge  (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:54:45 GMT

In article <BtKAyw.1yx.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

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

>> I think some pro-choicers on the net don't want to acknowledge 
>> the existence of extremists on their side, because if they did, 
>> they couldn't bash the extremists on the pro-life side without 
>> looking a little hypocritical. 

> I've been away - did DOD denounce Pat Buchanan's racist and homophobic
> speech in Houston, or is he trying to ignore it?  Did he comment
> on Bush's praise of the cops who attacked the ACT UP protesters?

You miss the point Ms. Garvin.  When you vigorously denounce the 
extremists on the pro-life side and try to ignore the extremists 
on the pro-choice side such as Mr. Loomis, it makes you look a 
little hypocritical.  I'm glad you can finally acknowledge the 
existence of extremists on the pro-choice side, even though I had 
to give you a little prodding.  

I hope to see you continue to acknowledge the extremists on the 
pro-choice side.  Now, here's your chance to do just that:

     "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
 
>Susan,


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 03:01:08 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  <1992Sep2.005607.21559@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
> The rich trade away the rights of the poor whenever more cops and more
> security measures are taken to prevent theft.

Are you suggesting that the poor have a right to steal?

> >##       "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   |

If you're pro-freedom of religion, do you have any comments regarding
Doug Holtsinger's ridiculing of the beliefs of Judaism?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 3 Sep 92 00:20:09 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug31.191507.17372@ncmicro.lonestar.org> 
|> ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin) writes:
|> 
|> > What annoys me is that, although the "anti-choice-to-abort" people seem
|> > to think that their arguments are superior, they evidently do not trust
|> > women to see this for themselves. 
|> 
|> You make it sound as if every woman is pro-choice.  Women are individuals 
|> who have a variety of opinions on abortion.  Please don't ignore their
|> individuality.  
|> 
|> And abortion is not a matter of "trust", it's a matter of what's "right".  
|> 
|> > They seem quite unwilling to place their arguments on the anvil of time
|> > to see if they are indeed superior, and prefer to assert the superiority
|> > of their arguments by government fiat.  Exactly what they complain about
|> > when government decides that school prayer is not constitutional.  
|> 
|> I'd be quite happy to overturn the "government fiat" known as 
|> Roe v. Wade and have the abortion issue returned to the states
|> where it rightfully belongs.  Let the people decide the issue.
|> 
This is excellent.  Doug should be working as a spin doctor with one of
the campaigns.  We all know s anti abortion and that he doesn't think
states have any more rights to make it legal than the federal government
does.  He just thinks "the people" will do what he wants.  If "the
people" do something else, he will change his opinion quickly enough.

Lie on Doug.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Some effects of Pregnancy
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 06:25:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.211222.11953@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>Very to the point and factual, Jimmers, but you left out the ONE most important
>"effect" of pregnancy.   A child is born.   Your son or daughter.  Who exhibits
>a very definite preference for his/her mother, over all other people, as soon
>as he/she is born.   The ensuing relationship between parents and child, if
>allowed to flower as the child grows to adulthood, will be probably _the_
>most fulfilling activity parents will undertake in their entire lives.

Absolutely amazing.

This posting is from the same woman who would force a woman to carry a child
to term when it is known the child will die shortly after birth rather than
allow a third trimester abortion, thus allowing a bond between mother and
child that will absolutely maximize the amount of suffering caused by the
physical condition of the child and its imminent death.

I am utterly, completely flabbergasted.  And saddened.  I actually feel like
crying right now...

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

<moment of silence>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion