HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:53:21 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <17iq8jINNgd9@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com writes:

> In article <1992Aug27.130803.17474@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> 
> >  Then I suppose there is little point in my discussing things with you, if
> >you intend to argue with the rest of the world and not the person who's
> >addressing you.
> 
> Ah, Jim discovers that talk.abortion isn't e-mail.  Finally.
> 
> Jim, I intend to argue what *I* think is important.  It's really a very
> basic notion.  Just take your fingers off the keys for a moment and read
> the sentence again.  "I intend to argue what *I* think is important."
> OK., got it?  Good.
> Adrienne Regard

  Then, my dear, I suggest you do not respond MY points but only to your own.
Oh, sorry, that's what you've been doing, isn't it?  Apparently arguing with
someone else, not me, all the time.  Kinda makes two-way communication point-
less, eh?  Enough, then.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:53:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.221226.19801@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

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

>>> The fact that Colautti v. Franklin
>>> struck down a law requiring this because the law did not clearly
>>> indicate that the woman was more important than the fetus in no
>>> way invalidates this.

>> That's not the reason why the law was struck down.  It was struck
>> down because the law was vague.

> What's the difference between "not clear" and "vague"?

I didn't say that there was a difference between "not clear" and "vague".

> One of the reasons given in the opinion was:

It wasn't the only reason, as you appear to imply.

>   The statute does not clearly specify, as appellants imply, that the
>   woman's life and health must always prevail over the fetus' life and
>   health when they conflict.

> Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


Doug Holtsinger
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Should FetalIdolators Be allowed as 'moderators'????
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:47:50 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <67030@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <29159@option.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>>I read Richard Pitts offer to moderate with a combination of aghast

>For your information, it was not an offer to moderate.  It was a
>statement of my inability to be an unbiased moderator.  Much less,
>if you didn't read the first post on this, I was in the list of seven
>or eight people that were suggested and so my post was in response
>to that proposal.

>>repulsion and humorous fascination: Can this guy be serious?  I was

>My original post is below, so if you want, please explain why you think 
>I am not serious.  I think I honestly expressed my views. 

From what I have seen of Mr. Pitts, I believe that he is a pretty
straight forward sort of a guy who is willing to state what he believes
and then stand behind his statements. While he and I may see things
from different sides of the issue, I have never seen anything that
would give me cause to doubt his credibility. 

Even here, Mr. Pitts states that he does not believe he can be an
unbiased moderator. A lot of people would not have the honesty to
make such a statement. For this reason, I believe that the attack
against Mr. Pitts may have been inappropiate.

Eric
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Putting out the fire, sort of
Date: 26 Aug 92 10:42:55 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <23946@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

To Suzanne:

>Where's your consistency?  Where's your honesty?

The only thing Suzanne has been consistent about is being dishonest.

-- 
"Republicans understand the importance of the bondage between parent and
child." - Dan Quayle at a GOP rally in Sept. '88 in Springfield, Illinois

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34713 alt.abortion.inequity:3444
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Genetic code != entire sum of the individual
Date: 30 Aug 1992 20:51:53 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <17qs7eINNqlb@agate.berkeley.edu> martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>But practically speaking, the genetic code of the unborn (whether twins
>or not) is UNIQUE and separate from the mother.

So?  What is this "unique" line all about?  Each and every sperm that
DOESN'T unite with an egg was unique, too, you know.  So what?

>Simply put, before abortion there is life.  After, there is death.


Before sex there is life, after sex there is a puddle in the middle of
the bed.  So what?  All those little unique spermies, just lying there
wasting their uniqueness.  Or do you scoop 'em up to reuse them?

Adrienne Regard


PS, now think about this for a minute.  Some people would consider these
comments to be tasteless remarks.  Or maybe even flames.  But what is the
POINT of them?  The point is that arguing 'uniqueness' as a fetal value is 
bankrupt.  Where would we be with a moderated group?  I vote no.  But then,
you all knew I would !  (-: 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cswicego@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Cynthia Swicegood)
Subject: Re: Another Clueless Newbie
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Va.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 07:06:39 GMT

To those of you that it concerns, I, the real Cynthia Swicegood, as
opposed to the person that has been posting to this news group (and who
knows what other news groups) using my account, I would like to
sincerely apologize for the intrusions into your conversations and the
lack of network etiquette.  I gave one of my employees permission to use
my account to READ only, the News network and familiarize himself with
our system here at GMU, until he was able to get his own account (considering
what just occurred, it may be a very long time :-), especially if I find
that my name has been used anywhere else.  Yes, I do realize how stupid
this was and I have learned my lesson, I just didn't want to turn him
loose using the system's operator account.

A message from the guilty party (Rob): "I shall return, after learning
more about the News network."  

Thank you all for your time.

Cindy Swicegood
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Putting out the fire, sort of
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:32:45 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>In article <23946@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>tes:

>To Suzanne:

>>Where's your consistency?  Where's your honesty?

>The only thing Suzanne has been consistent about is being dishonest.

I do believe you missed this attribution. I answered those questions.
I already know she has neither. :)

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 05:11:45 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <1992Aug21.002659.16657@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Aug20.161402.14153@nas.nasa.gov>, by dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King):
>> In article <1992Aug20.134731.522@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>> 
>> [Lots of way cool stuff that Galen writes so well]
>
>Hardly.  He's all hung up on "control" on the wrong time scale.
>Only the people who are unwilling to control their bodies _before_ conception
>are the ones who are screaming about the "need" to control their bodies _after_
>conception.
>
>Nobody is trying to take away anybody's control of their own bodies.
>We're simply making it plain that it is appropriate to apply that control
>at the correct time, BEFORE there is a child whose own body is also involved.

So the only sexual intercourse that you've ever had was for the specific
purpose of concieving a child.  And once you had reached your objective
you stopped.

-- 

Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	unixland!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Daniel Dick and ignorance is bliss!
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:52:43 GMT

In article <29408@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
#In article <1992Sep3.002843.17095@pony.Ingres.COM> dan@Ingres.COM
#(Daniel J. Dick) writes as if to illustrate the dangers of posting
#without thinking or even reading.  He started his rant in response to
#Susan Garvin's question: 
#
##: How is it that you know what Nyikos's point was, given that you
##: didn't read his article?
#
#Excuse, Mr. Dick, you're looking pretty ignorant and your rant in
#response to Susan exacerbated rather than answered her original point.

I wonder if he's capable of understanding this.

##Well, Susan, perhaps I did misunderstand Mr. Nyiko's point of view and
##perhaps your folks did not lie or misrepresent or misunderstand his point
#Who are Susan's foolks?  Have her parents been posting?

I certainly hope not, given that they're both dead.

##of view conveniently.  Why don't we settle this and ask Mr. Nyiko himself.
#
#How about settling it by reading what he wrote originally before
#placing your foot in your mouth?

Shhh.  That would be too easy.  It's much more impressive to
claim that you know what someone said without reading their
words, isn't it?

#Deletia: Homily about reducing flaming.  Jeesh!

Interesting, too, that Dick hasn't responded to any of Hall/Chaney's
rants, isn't it?

##The reason I was able to comment without having seen the original text from
##Mr. Nyiko was for the obvious--very clearly obvious--reason that the followup
##held all the characteristics of a convenient and intentional misrepresentation--
##namely the attribution of ideas that nobody could hold to an opposing side.
##No reasonable person could possibly hold that women are to be abused by forced
##abortion and be on the pro-life side, now, could they?  Be real.  It's not a
##difficult conclusion to come to is it?  Then why was it presented in this way?
#
#Your foot is so firmly in your mouth at this point -- I hope you have
#your shoes off.  Mr. Nyikos implied that the pro-choice position
#supported forced abortions.  No one implied the opposite.
#


I wonder if he's read Nyikos's post now.

##Frankly, you're not amusing at all, and I find your disrespect sickening.  I'm
##not in the least convinced to follow your views or give them careful
##consideration based on the mockery you give.  I much prefer reading an opposing
##view that correctly addresses the opponent with respect, without mockery.
#
#Perhaps if you would read posts before commenting about them and not
#contradict yourself in the space of one paragraph, you might get less
#mockery and more respect.
#


Really.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: REWRITING HISTORY: Adulterated RvW versions: FAQ, recent post...
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.
Keywords: may be, is, established fact
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 01:07:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.164340.25851@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

[Delete.  Delete.  Delete till you're blue in the face...]

>Excerpted from excerpts from Roe v Wade in Constitutional Law and 
>Individual Rights in Constitutional Law, Cases and Materials,
>1973 Supplement, by Gerald Gunther and Noel T. Dowling

I love it.  DOD, master of the "creative excerpt" is trying to throw stones...
--
=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,alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:47:58 GMT

In article <siyemop@Unify.Com> sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
>In article <nzhn-zf.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>> >Currently true.  But IMO, that's what this discussion is all about, changing
>> >that.  Just because a fetus is not recognized as a person now, does not
>> >mean that law (or amendments to the constitution) cannot be passed to
>> >change it's status.
>> 
>> I don't beleive for an instant that you really want to see legal personhood
>> begin at conception.  To do so would require that murder charges be filed
>> against any women who gets an abortion.  Engaging in any hazardous activity
>> while pregnant would be child endangerment.
>> 
>> Is THIS the sort of world you want to live in?
>> 
>> -- 
>> Ray Fischer
>> ray@netcom.com
>
>That is exactly what I want.  I do consider it a person at conception and I
>think murder charges should be filed against any women who gets an abortion
>- and my wife has said the same thing...

Well, good for you two. Hopefully, you will not get what you want.  And 
hopefully the legal system will not be as arbitrary as you are in simply 
'considering' a zygote a person at concpetion with no further support
or reasoning.
-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 05:16:06 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <1992Aug21.001742.3923@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.141415.3923@spdc.ti.com> 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.

Because we must strive to make the population density of the US equal to
that of India and Red China.  And then there will be more cheap transplant
parts on the market. :-)

-- 

Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	unixland!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP
From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Daniel Dick and ignorance is bliss!
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:12:22 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Sep3.002843.17095@pony.Ingres.COM> dan@Ingres.COM
(Daniel J. Dick) writes as if to illustrate the dangers of posting
without thinking or even reading.  He started his rant in response to
Susan Garvin's question: 

>: How is it that you know what Nyikos's point was, given that you
>: didn't read his article?

Excuse, Mr. Dick, you're looking pretty ignorant and your rant in
response to Susan exacerbated rather than answered her original point.

>Well, Susan, perhaps I did misunderstand Mr. Nyiko's point of view and
>perhaps your folks did not lie or misrepresent or misunderstand his point
Who are Susan's foolks?  Have her parents been posting?

>of view conveniently.  Why don't we settle this and ask Mr. Nyiko himself.

How about settling it by reading what he wrote originally before
placing your foot in your mouth?

Deletia: Homily about reducing flaming.  Jeesh!

>The reason I was able to comment without having seen the original text from
>Mr. Nyiko was for the obvious--very clearly obvious--reason that the followup
>held all the characteristics of a convenient and intentional misrepresentation--
>namely the attribution of ideas that nobody could hold to an opposing side.
>No reasonable person could possibly hold that women are to be abused by forced
>abortion and be on the pro-life side, now, could they?  Be real.  It's not a
>difficult conclusion to come to is it?  Then why was it presented in this way?

Your foot is so firmly in your mouth at this point -- I hope you have
your shoes off.  Mr. Nyikos implied that the pro-choice position
supported forced abortions.  No one implied the opposite.

>Frankly, you're not amusing at all, and I find your disrespect sickening.  I'm
>not in the least convinced to follow your views or give them careful
>consideration based on the mockery you give.  I much prefer reading an opposing
>view that correctly addresses the opponent with respect, without mockery.

Perhaps if you would read posts before commenting about them and not
contradict yourself in the space of one paragraph, you might get less
mockery and more respect.

SJM
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33974 talk.religion.misc:15176 talk.politics.misc:42738
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 10:59:01 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Shocking News About Clinton!!!!
 <farenebt.714924650@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>
 <1992Aug29.000721.16590@oracle.us.oracle.com>

In article <1992Aug29.000721.16590@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael
Friedman) says:
>
>In article <farenebt.714924650@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>
>farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>>>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>>] In article <l9ni49INNorq@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S.
>Lape)
>writes:
>
>>>] >   Regardless of his stance on abortion, Clinton does not support an
>>>] >American's right to choose.  This is ashame since he claims to be
>>>] >"pro-choice."  Well Gov. Clinton, I want to choose my doctor and where my
>>>] >kids can go to school.  I do not need the government telling me.
>
>>If you are rich enough to be able to afford choosing your own doctor, then
>>good for you. But 40 million Americans cannot; 70% of whom are working
>>full-time jobs (or their families), according to ABC News.
>
>Bri, I think your statistics are screwy.  Average family in the US is
>two or three people.  Your stat would indicate that half of America
>has not health insurance, a palpable lie.

The statistic is roughly correct, though not stated clearly.  Approximately
37 million Americans were without health insurance according to the 1987
National Nedical Expenditure Survey.  That number has probably climbed in
the last 5 years.  Of those 37 million approximately two-thirds are either
working full-time, or living with a family member who is working full-time.
That does not imply that "half of America" does not have health insurance.

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:24:55 GMT

In <1992Aug24.222123.25747@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <nyikos.714617073@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <nyikos.714610464@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter N
>>
>> >In <1992Aug22.185419.40368@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margol
>> >>See the data I posted in article <1992Aug20.212437.17478@watson.ibm.com>.
>>
>> >My tables of contents don't show this kind of info.  Is it along this
>> >same thread, at least?

>I'll email it to you.

Thanks, I got it.  Unfortunately, all the info in it seems to go back
one way or the other to the pro-abortion [and I don't use that word
lightly] Alan Guttmacher Institute.

>> >> it was reported recently that it was also on 60 Minutes.
>>
>> >60 minutes also made a mess of the Becky Bell case. This was an alleged
>> >example of a young woman dying of an abortion procured "outside the
>> >health system." It was trumpeted far and wide as an argument against
>> >parental consent laws, which is curious because Becky Bell's parents had
>> >taken her to Planned Parenthood to take care of what they thought was an
>> >earlier pregnancy, but which turned out to be a false alarm.
>>
>> > Dr. Willke, one of the interviewees, quoted
>> >extensively from the original autopsy report, which indicated, even
>> >according the pathologist who did the autopsy, that the cervix showed
>> >no signs of forced entry, consistent with a miscarriage, but not an
>> >induced abortion; it also indicated that the cause of death was
>> >pneumonia having no connection with anything in her uterus.  Willke
>> >kept emphasizing over and over again the importance of going back to
>> >the autopsy report.

>What I heard was that it was pneumonia caused by a septic abortion.

What I heard was that it was pneumonia caused by vomit going back down
the wrong way, said vomit being caused by the drugs she was taking
recreationally.

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: on the matter of ms. bartley's honesty
Date: 4 Sep 92 01:00:00 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.


i read that someone had questioned ms. bartley's
honesty.

i have never know ms. bartley to be dishonest.

if one didn't look too deeply, one could argue that the
fact that she puts pro-choice in her .sig on each of
her posts and the fact that she espouses anti-choice
legislation as well as punitive measures to be taken
against the woman is dishonest.

i think that argument would be wrong, primarily because
i am reasonably convinced that ms. bartley is not
trying to deceive.  she has been open and honest about
her desire for anti-choice legislation. she has been
open and honest about her wish to punish the women who
have the abortions ms. bartley wants to forbid. and she
has shown herself to be determined to call herself
pro-choice.

i truly believe that she simply doesn't comprehend the
concept of choice or what supporting choice means. but
that limitation doesn't make her dishonest.








-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion