HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Humphrey should apologize to Mr. Chaney 
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:08:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.202853.21312@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

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

>> I have never posted racial slanders, and neither has Mr. Kellmeyer or
>> Mr. Chaney.

> This statement is not correct.

I have never posted racial slanders.  I have never seen Mr. Kellmeyer or
Mr. Chaney post racial slanders.  

But that's irrelevant.  And you know that. 

Humphrey has posted remarks which carry strong racist overtones.  
He hasn't apologized to Mr. Chaney.   I believe that that he should.

I will continue to press him to apologize to Mr. Chaney.  As long 
as it takes.  Does everyone understand that? 
 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31711 alt.politics.bush:1578 co.politics:1336
From: jhull@vulcan.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (   Joseph F. Hull)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,co.politics
Subject: Re: How many Republicans support their abortion plank? (Re: Another ...)
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:26:11 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver

I'm a Republican and I do NOT support the Republican Party Platform statement on reproductive
rights.

-- 
	   _   _
    /_    / ) / ) Jeff Hull          hull@den.mmc.com
   //_) -/- -/-   1544 S. Vaughn Cir
/_/ \_/ /   /	  Aurora, CO 80012   303-977-1061
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Just Plain LIES!! (was Re: The facts about Roe, Doe, and Colautti)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:16:21 GMT




I predict that DOD really does drop the "substantiate it or retract
it" thread now.

It's one thing to be dishonest.  It's another to be stupidly dishonest.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain what kind of idiot repeatedly
fabricates evidence, doctors quotes, and changes context *knowing*
that he'll be caught.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 16:42:13 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <1992Aug20.142025.4064@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:

> If you are not willing to accept responsibility for the possible failure
>  of contraception, then yes, you should consider celibacy.  From your reply
>  I assume that you plan on having children some time.  Is it right then, to 
>  abort an unplanned pregnancy because it is convenient?  
 
When or if I have sex has absolutely nothing to do with you.  It is none of 
your damn business.  I strongly resent the fact that you feel you are within
your rights to preach to me regarding my sex life.  Bug Out.

As far as your question, the debate has nothing to do with if it is right
or not to get an abortion.  The debate regards if it is legal or not.  Change
the question to legal and I would answer yes.  Leave it as right and I 
would say it is none of mine or your business.

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:53:20 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  <1992Aug19.174332.2123@brandonu.ca>  mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> In article <1992Aug13.165127.39789@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@wats
> > In  <1992Aug12.185151.2112@brandonu.ca>  mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> >> In article <1992Aug12.180033.9957@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@wa
> >> > In  <1992Aug11.182610.2104@brandonu.ca>  mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> >> >> In article <1992Aug11.144923.40319@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margol
> >> >> > In  <9779@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>  brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writ
> >> >> >> In <1992Aug10.134616.27853@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Ru
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Trying to draw a bright line at
> >> >> >> >conception is just as arbitrary as a line at viability or birth.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Birth isn't arbitrary, just wrong.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Truth by Blatant Assertion.
> >>
> >> >> PS So what if it's truth by blatant assertion?  It's still truth.
> >> >
> >> > Asserting it as true doesn't make it true.
> >>
> >> Yes, I know that, I was just pointing out that it was unnecesary, perhaps
> >> even misleading to say "Truth by Blatant Assertion" because it sounds as
> >> though it wasn't actually truth.
> >
> > Actually, I pointed out that it's "Truth by Blatant Assertion" *because*
> > I believe it to not be true.  You're welcome to try to prove otherwise.
>
> I can't prove otherwise,

OK, TbBA it is.

> You say it's ok to pick the arbitrary point of birth to abort.

Yes.

> ie abortions before birth are ok, but infanticide is wrong.

No.  See, I didn't say that abortions immediately before birth (or any time,
for that matter) are *OK*, just that drawing the line at birth was OK.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: jamcdani@zia.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Good Bumper Sticker
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:50:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Indiana University

In article <usglkrx.713337699@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu  
(Lori K. Rothman) writes:
> And one of the silliest anti-abortion [bumper stickers] ever
> 
> "If the unborn could vote, abortion would be illegal"
> 
> gee, and if we allowed the unborn to vote, we would have to extend the
> right to the born as well..all kids could vote regardless of age....
> think of some the legislation that might pass if they got that voting 
> block organized....

It sure would make for some interesting ads on the Saturday
mornings of election years! :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
"All we ever look for: a god...a drug...a great big hug." -KaTe Bush
 Big ol' IU taking the opinions of one undergrad?!? Yeah, right....
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 00:07:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.121232.13337@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>Damn.  I have got to get a copy of that Constitution everyone else
>is using.  I keep seeing people talk about the "right to life"
>as it were a constitutional statement, and then I go home and
>check my copies of the Constitution and there's nothing in there
>about a right to life.

Actually, the Constitution does *not* specifically mention a right to life.
It *does* specifically say that there are rights that are not specifically
mentioned that cannot be abrogated.

The Declaration of Independence, which was used to promote our right to
self-government, DOES specifically mention rights to "life, liberty and
the perfuit of happinefs" (sorry, I have trouble resisting transliterating
the stylized esses as efs B^).  Since the Declaration of Independence is
the founding document of our country, many Constitutional scholars maintain
that those three rights go without saying, as our country was formed within
the context of that document.

But in any case, rights have always been specifically held to apply only to
born people, not to blastocysts, zygotes, embryos or fetuses, and to not
apply fully to born people who are under the age of majority.

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

And this is a table ma'am.  What in essence it consists of is a
horizontal rectilinear plane surface maintained by four vertical
columnar supports, which we call legs.  The tables in this laboratory,
ma'am, are as advanced in design as one will find anywhere in the
world.
		-- Michael Frayn, "The Tin Men"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush 
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:08:18 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> Actually, I think it's neat that Bush and Quayle would be supportive of
>> their female offspring (or offoffspring in GHWB's case).  

> I'm sure Bush and Quayle would also support their childrens' decision to
> vote for pro-life candidates.

Before or after they've had their abortions, Doug?

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
 "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -- Benjamin Disraeli
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Easily observed crite [truncationsRus]
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: Thu, 13 Aug 92 05:52:32 GMT

In article <odel65s@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug8.145825.24454@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu writes:
>|In article <1992Aug6.225316.8035@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>|[Deleted:  Dan asks how we'd rate the words...]
>|1) Legal.
>|2) Safe.
>|3) Rare.
>|4) Early.
>
>I think I'd rank 'em the same way.
>
>"Legal" and "safe" seem a little redundant to me... if abortion
>is a legal medical procedure, it's going to be a safe medical
>procedure.  I also want it legal so that women aren't harassed,
>persecuted, & prosecuted for ending pregnancies.  "Legal" seems
>a prerequisite for most of the other qualifiers, too.  A legal
>abortion, available in your local clinic or hospital, is easier
>to obtain (and hence more likely to happen early) than an illegal
>abortion, obtained through a network of strangers.

Not necessarily.  It's perfectly legal for a doctor to prescribe 1400 mg of
AZT, 1500mg of DDI, and 600 mg of DDC for an AIDS patient.  Taking that much
medication will probably kill them, but it's perfectly legal.
--
=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 want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:39:42 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article <adams.713740297@spssig>, by adams@spss.com (Steve Adams):
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> 
>>>Children at that age are simply learning that the world is made up of
>>>men and women, and not just big kids (adults) and little kids.   I
>>>strongly suspect your little niece was not embracing homosexualism as much 
>>>as she was simply verbalizing that she could tell that they were both men.
>> 
>> And didn't see anything wrong.  If society were the same, she'd never, ever
>> see anything wrong with it.  But when someone TELLS her that it's
>> icky-yuckey-gross, then she'll perhaps start to feel that way...to the
>> detriment of people who happen to be DIFFERENT than you are.
>                                                      ^^^
>Me?  What have _I_ got to do with it?

You are the one who's trying to impose her views on life on others.  Not
me.  That is what you have to do with it.  Your ranting over your so-called
pro-life position, by which you would compell by force women to carry to
term pretty much explains it to me.

>I think Steve, that you are just overwhelmingly paranoid.   You are so
>gung ho about insisting that child saw and embraced more than she did,
>that you fail to see that you are also attributing to ME more than I
>actually said.
No, just looking at the past and your positions on forcing people to comply
with your views...

>I was merely pointing out to Brian that that child saw nothing more than
>two men, and expressed it in her baby language.   I seriously doubt she even
>noticed they were holding hands.
You are making an assumption, too.  Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

>Mr. Paranoid.
Yep.  And rightly so, considering all of the idiots out there who are busy
trying to limit my self-determination and my freedoms.  'Pro-life' is just
one more attempt to limit freedom.

 -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
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31304 alt.flame:11989
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: without even being asked ....
Date: 12 Aug 92 11:56:40 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

without even being asked, the chaney/hall person posting as
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

-> Came out of the 12th grade hitting a high of 3.66
-> and a total GPA around 3.0. Yeah, like a kid with a
-> bad childhood at home (which wasn't true for me) and
-> computer bashers on his ass at school (which was the
-> case for me), can actually do that and graduate @
-> 17.

wow. that's, gulp, wonderful dennis. what were your sat
scores?

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 20 Aug 92 02:31:12 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Aug19.214911.10266@Cadence.COM> 
phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:

> Yes, but the pro-choice position allows pro-life women not to have abortions.

But apparently the pro-choice position (as espoused by the Democratic party)
forces pro-life women to pay for someone else's abortion.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 18:03:45 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <av_nsdc.gordons@netcom.com>
gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>When Mr Chaney, Mr Kellmeyer, and Mr Holtsinger have apologized for their
>racial slander of pro-choicers then I would expect to see Patrick 
>make amends.

I find racist comments offensive regardless of what other comments
have gone before.

I also find offensive the idea that whether or not Patrick should
apologize to Steve Chaney is dependant on what Mr Kellmeyer and Mr.
Holtsinger do.

--
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: APOLOGY (another one)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:13:53 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <1992Aug12.222911.25263@noao.edu>, (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>Well, I apologize to Patrick Humphrey for making my "much as you'd like to"
>remark, when he said his wife wouldn't let him forget their anniversary.
>I'm sorry about that.

See this, Kevin?  _This_ is what an apology is supposed to look like.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Chaney's problems - call for discussion (was: Re: Garvin gets stabbed in the back! (was Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 15:29:07 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: world  

<1992Aug12.184217.26374@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) :
><1992Aug12.021123.7696@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) :
>><23256@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>>>Chaney, some news for you, some of us don't take the net seriously, ...
>>Is the Instant Self-righteous Indignation crowd reading this, I wonder?
>
>Well, I don't take it seriously, except as a grounds for catching and
>webbing in pro-lifers with the Internet.pro-life.newsletter. More than
>a few pro-lifers post, who don't know about the newsletter. That and I
>train on pro-abortion arguments presented here; I have never
>considered any argument of mine "strong enough" and am always testing
>it for any holes through which pro-aborts can possibly weasel their
>way out of. 

By all means, let's see these arguments.  Heck, why didn't you say you ahd
some arguments to begin with.

>Unfortunately, I also stumble upon some folks who have nothing better
>to do, than to try and tear my guts out on this newsgroup, and as a 
>result, I spend my time battling them. 

You might try pretending you are a human being for once, instead of a
fighter plane, or an inhuman alien race.

Also, if your comments about throwing any pro-choice child out of the
house is an example of your argumentation, please keep it until you come
up with some serious stuff that we can discuss without laughing.

>===============================================================================
>"I smoked... but I didn't inhale." - Bill Clinton 
>===============================================================================

"I read... but I don't comprehend." - Steve Chaney


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31383 alt.flame:12010
From: levin@bbn.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:56:52 GMT
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
|In case Pat Roby didn't notice, the point was, no, there was no way I
|could have had any form of a bad childhood at home. 

But please don't ask him about his hatching.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Fetal Independence
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 22:10:08 GMT

In article <5695@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> 
tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

> [ differences between a fetus and a newborn ]

> Can't be transferred to another person

A person who does not wish to care for a newborn infant is obligated 
to transfer custody of the infant to another person, and also to
refrain from killing the infant in the meantime.  The same  
principle should apply to pregnancy.

> Lives within and connected to another	
> person

Yes, the mother and the child live connected together.  Now why 
wouldn't the mother forfeit her right to life because she's 
connected to the fetus, rather than vice versa?  

The child is inside the mother, but it's not clear why that
fact, _in itself_, should allow the mother to kill the child.
These are just "facts of pregnancy", they're not sufficient 
justification for killing the child.  

I would be equally justified in asserting that the child should
possess the right to life because it's a member of the human
species.  Membership in the human species is a "fact", just
like the "facts of pregnancy".  But we're not allowed to kill
people based upon mere "facts", we need a justification for 
killing them.  

> Lives off nutrients in bloodstream of
> another person	

A newborn infant sucking on its mother's breast is living off nutrients
provided by the mother.  That's not sufficient justification for killing 
the infant.  

> Deposits waste products into bloodstream
> of another person

Well obviously that's another "fact of pregnancy". But that fact,  
 _in itself_ , is not sufficient justification for killing the child.
During most pregnancies, the woman's physical health is not harmed by 
the presence of the child.  You need to present a justification for
killing the child, not just the "facts of pregnancy." 

> Causes distortion of body in another person

Again, in most pregnancies, the woman's physical health is not harmed
by the "distortion" of her body.  This is just another "fact of pregnancy",
it's not a sufficient reason for killing the child.  

> Internally introduces risks of injury and
> death in another person

In a condition known as Rh incompatibility, the mother's immune system
can attack the child, possibly causing death and severe injury.  The
mother's use of drugs and alcohol can also severely damage her baby. 
Why wouldn't the mother forfeit her right to life because of the  
_risk_ that she _might_ injure or cause the death of her baby in these 
circumstances?  

> ...Therefore...
> Justifies affected person acting in 
> self-defense

A person can kill in self-defense only when they can reasonably
believe that their life is in _immediate_ danger. Most pregnancies
do not fit that requirement.   


>--Teddi


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:25:04 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <1992Aug20.173537.3550@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
}In article <1992Aug20.134731.522@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
}gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}
}> The issue is control,  
}
}The issue is killing.

I used to think so too, but all the talk about killing is a means to an end.
Among all the "pro-life" groups I have come into contact with (a fair number,
with a fairly wide geographical distribution) I found a few things in common.
Legislation is always on the agenda.  Some may work in different areas, but
those groups who target abortion always have legislation as one of their
cornerstones.  This is not to say that is all they do, but it is to say
they all do that.  Also,  simply stating that you are opposed to legislation
without mentioning (or mentioning, if you get the chance) is frowned upon
so much that it is made quite clear that you are unwelcome.

Also, so many make exceptions for rape and incest that the "killing"
angle is somewhat subject to the reason behind the killing.

No, the issue isn't killing in and of itself, it is something else.  The
killing plucks some heartstrings, and it attracts some well-meaning
people, but the reason behind it is elsewhere.  Near as I can figure it
is control, although I may be wrong, but it sure isn't killing


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Barbara Bush on Abortion
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:06:11 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

I see on CNN this morning that Barbara Bush was quoted as saying that she
didn't feel that there sould be an abortion plank in the Republican
platform as the decision whether or not to have an abortion was a "personal
choice".

Still planning on voting for George, Dennis?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion