HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: DearOldDoug tries, tries, tries again
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:40:47 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout the
>>> term of pregnancy.  

>> Holtsinger is well aware that this is not true.  

> It's true -- Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
> the term of pregnancy. Here's a quote to prove it:

[--quote deleted--]

Doug, you can quote all you like, your lie is refuted by the _text_ of
Roe vs. Wade, which I will not include because it's been posted once
today by Susan Garvin.

> Mark Tushnet is a professor of law at Georgetown University.
> I have supporting evidence from 5 other independent sources,
> and many of them are from prestigious law journals. Send 
> me e-mail if you're interested in seeing them.

Peter Nyikos is a professor of mathematics at USC with a number of
impressive achievements in his field to his credit.  This hasn't
rendered him immune to committing some rather obvious faux pas wrt
the abortion issue.

> [.. quote deleted to save space ..]

If you had included it, would you have left off the last paragraph
as you did with J. Greenfield?

> That quote is entirely consistent with the quote which
> I provided above.

If you delete the last paragraph, as you did before.

> It basically says that a woman's ability to obtain an abortion is
> dependent on the availability of a physician who's willing to perform
> the abortion -- which is essentially abortion-on-demand.

Heh.  I can see for myself what it says by pulling it up on another
window.




-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: THE SUFFERING OF SOME UNBORN AND THEIR MOTHERS (Case 1)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Oct 92 05:48:58 GMT

In <1992Sep28.235818.19263@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:

I missed the question.

>Since Nyikos won't provide the name of the plaintiff, I will.
>According to "The Abortion Injury Report", Kathleen Marie
>Maki filed suit against Dr. Hanson, alleging medical 
>malpractice.  From the article, "Kathleen Marie Maki
>claims in the suit that Dr. Hanson committed assualt and
>battery because she inflicted excessive physical force
>during the abortion by having four staff members hold 
>Kathleen down on the table, one person holding each of
>her arm and legs.  Kathleen now suffers permanent and
>progressive numbness in her hands and feet." (AIR,
>July, 1990.)

Actually a quote from a newspaper.

BTW, Susan, Charles Wysong told me that they do give information
about medical help, etc. if the woman leaves a name and phone
number.  Did you do that?

He also said they would NEVER send a woman back to the abortionist
for medical help.  

Do you care to dispute this statement?

>I'd like to know the outcome, as well.  The AIR, as far as
>I know, never prints the outcomes of these lawsuits.

Also, Susan, I have at least one other source for the Maki
case.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter against "Lady" Adrienne
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 16:11:06 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
->By (Muriel Nelson):
->>It is a measure of your misogyny that you fail to appreciate
->>Adrienne.  

->"Appreciate"?  Adrienne who's so bitter and angry she devalues
->motherhood at every opportunity?

i have never seen adrienne devalue motherhood. i'm sure
you wouldn't have said this unless you were prepared
to support it; else it would just be another
unsupported allegation.
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Shlafly/Benshoof abortion debate, September 15th.
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:05:06 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <nyikos.717901326@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>In <23SEP92.16160470@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>>In a previous article, Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>In  <nyikos.716934353@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>> In <16SEP92.17080297@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>>>Most *current* laws allow an exception for rape or incest, but the
>>>Republican party platform allows *no* exceptions for rape or incest.

>The platform is symbolic.  Senator Simpson made that abundantly clear
>to Andrea Mitchell of NBC when she tried to fish for Casey-like
>dissent at the Republican convention.  

>Simpson, like Spector, is pro-choice.  The interrogation of Anita Hill
>went along party lines more than abortion lines.

>>And even if the situation does not change, I'm sure it will be next to 
>>impossible to get abortions for these reasons.

>Bullshit.  There is an enormous support network, of which I am a member,
>to help make it easy for women to report rapes.  Once a woman goes through
>the protocols, there will be a legal presumption, for purposes of 
>abortion, that she was raped.

     Then I add my 
voice to those who recommend that, under such a law,
all sexually active women should report a rape monthly. Call it
insurance, if you like :-)
>>  People who don't trust women 
>>to make decisions are not likely to trust a woman just because she says she 
>>was raped.

>I think pro-choicers are MORE likely not to trust women to make decisions
>than pro-lifers.  Why are they so afraid of laws that give women the 
>OPTION to view information on fetal development.

>>  Even with these exceptions, plenty of rape/incest victims will be 
>>disbelieved and denied abortions.

>In an earlier post, I mentioned _To Kill a Mockingbird_.  For a real
>life example, there is Willie Smith, although in his case I personally
>am almost as likely to believe his victim.  

     Hmmm. Have you actually _read_ the book this time?

>Perhaps readers can come up with more clear-cut real-life examples that
>are matters of public information.  

     WKS seems to me to be a good example of a woman who was
disbelieved. Does the accused have to be found guilty of rape in order
for the woman to take advantage of this loophole? If not, doesn't the
fact that she has had an abortion due to a rape loophole automatically
cast further aspersions on the accused rapist?

>Peter Ny

                                                           MP
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:37:40 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct1.222306.21720@dbsun.uucp> harbison@dbsun.uucp (harbison) writes:
>In article <1ad9meINNbkq@bigboote.WPI.EDU>
>jseaver@arkose.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver) writes:
>>>> If she really could not afford (not monetarily speaking) to become
>>>> pregnant, she shouldn't have risked pregnancy by having sex.

>>> I wasn't aware that death was an appropriate consequence for having sex.

>> No, death isn't.  Having a child, however, IS.

>Do you realize what you wrote?  You have equated a child and a
>consequence.  All this time I've thought my two sons were small
>people.  What a surprise to discover that they are punishment
>for the dirty deeds in which my wife and I engaged 7 and 11
>years ago. (I admit, we've done it more than twice. :-)

That's because the anti-choice folks don't really care about children.
What they care about is controlling other peoples bodies and behavior.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:26:50 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <91356@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@WALTZ.SEAS.UPENN.EDU (Kevin Welch) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.194804.10828@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep30.214722.12081@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>>I suggest you study the history of abortion laws in the US. Outlawing
>>abortion was a mid-19th C thing that was promoted by white protestants
>>who feared that Irish and German Catholics would soon outnumber them.
>>They were also afraid that the 'darkies' would soon outnumber the white
>>folks.

>No.  A mid-19th Century ban on abortion enveloped due to the AMA's 
>position that it was potentially dangerous to the woman
>receiving the abortion.  The medical technology was inadequate
>to compensate for the adverse reactions possible in such
>situations.

Kevin, prior to the ban on abortions, there were laws providing penalties
in the event of harm to the woman. These were not bans. The Connecticut
law of circa 1820 is very interesting, especially if you review the 
court decisions made under it. The sole concern in court practice seemed
to be the health of the woman.

Even in the 19thC, it was understood that abortion was safer than childbirth.
One can read the opinions of 1840s physicians who were of the opinion that
every doctor should perfect his technique because of the threat of 
delivery to 'delicate' women.

>Your reply is that of but a small segment.  Perhaps you should read
>Roe to find out more about these laws.

Roe contains minimal history. I suggest that you read the statutes and
the legislative debates and save yourself from revealing your lack
of an historical background in the future. Why don't you start with the
Oregon Constitutional Convention discussions - the few newspaper and
other articles on this 1850s procedure are very revealing.
 

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 14:10:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.064647.5038@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

}Am I supposed to apologize for being...

Yes Kevin, and the sooner the better.

       TTTTTTTTTT    SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      K   K    CCCCCCC
           T         S             A       A      K  K     C
           T         S             A       A      K K      C
           T         SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      KK       C
           T                S      A       A      K K      C  
           T                S      A       A      K  K     C
           T         SSSSSSSS      A       A      K   K    CCCCCCC

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Don't push your morals on me.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Oct 92 01:46:12 GMT

In <1992Sep24.233104.19883@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>In article <1992Sep24.143921.52374@gmuvax.gmu.edu> sparker@gmuvax.gmu.edu writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>Since when did any suddenly get the right to tell anyone else
>>what to do with their bodies?? 

>If it were merely a medical operation intended to help the mother
>directly, sure.  I see no problem in that.

>But you do know, of course, it isn't "merely just a medical operation."  
>Something very special may just be involved.

>> If my fiancee got pregnant at this point
>>in time she would definately get an abortion.  
>>Why? You ask?  Because of the fact that she is an important source 
>>of income in our relationship..  Should she get pregnant, she would have
>>to quit her job or take an extended leave of absence.

WHILE PREGNANT?? Does she
work with hazardous chemicals? Is she in the military?  

>>  Thus causing a 
>>substantial impact on our financial situation.

If the two of you got married, would that change her employer's attitude?

>>  Plus, she would have
>>to pay for prenatal care (which we cannot afford..)

Really? with both of you working? neither of you has insurance?

>>So don't tell me that she must have a baby, thereby ruining two lives
>>in the process of creating one....

What's wrong with putting it up for adoption?

OK, so maybe you really are sincere about all this and you really
are so financially pressed.  What bothers me, though, is that you
do not even consider the alternative of abstinence.  Are you really
willing to ruin one life after creating it?

Note, I do not want to force my morals on you.  I'm just trying
to understand yours. And I'd like for you to see mine, and Martin's.
His posts on "I had an abortion two days ago" might be a good place
to start.

>>SPARKER@GMUVAX.GMU.EDU
>>
>Why do our children always have to be the ones to suffer?

Peter Nyikos





Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:10:21 GMT

In article <26031@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <25986@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>
>>>Martin has come across as a pompous ignorant oaf.
>
>>Please specify specific instances as well as reasons why you say this.
>
>Your posts, which show your complete lack of respect for the person
>feelings, thoughts, and humanity of the woman involved, even when pointed 
>out specifically, in your single, one-track thought process of SAVE 
>THE FETUS. Future posts can always negate this impression, and I have
>by no means read all your posts. Just the ones I responded to and your
>responses to them, as well as the ones I alluded to in my responses,
>and then some that I found unworthy of my time to respond to, as some
>were adequately addressed by others.
>

Thanks for taking your time to respond Ronald.  I hear you.  However, I
did mention time and time again that what I was looking at was the
right of the unborn child to live vs. the right of the woman to live.  I
believe that the life of a human takes precedence (born or unborn).  In this
particular case, more often then not, what is at stake becomes a battle
between the right of the unborn to life vs. the right of the mother
to control her body (which easily includes, of course, the life of the
unborn son or daughter within her).  The right to life of one human party
must be preserved.

What this has to do with me being an "ignorant pompous oaf" I really
don't know.
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 4 Oct 92 19:21:57 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <1992Oct4.170915.18863@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
}Galen writes:
}>Brian Kendig writes:
}>
}>}I'll meet you halfway on this.  I'm all for letting women know what
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
}>}they're really doing when they go in for an abortion; I'm in favor of
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
}>}showing them a chart of the development of a human fetus and letting
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
}>}them see what they're un-making by having an abortion.  But I DON'T
}>}want to see people feeding them subjective propaganda like so many
}>}pro-lifers seem to like doing.
}>
}>Halfway?  You're going to meet this guy halfway and confer upon
}>women some special knowledge that you seem to think is known or
}>discovered only by those with a Wand of Wonder?  Shoot, let the
}>women figure it out for themselves.  They can, you know.  

}I don't see your point.  

Perhaps it is a bit clearer now.  

}Is there something wrong with letting women
}know exactly what's inside them before they kill it?  

Well, taken one way, there is nothing wrong with encouraging dissemination
of information, however "letting women know what they are really doing,"
stretches that a bit far.  I generally think that they are just as
capable of men in figuring out what they are doing.  You may feel a 
need to show people charts, I'll agree that the masses could be better
informed about a whole range of topics, but when you single out women
wanting abortions to show charts and the like to I kinda question
your need to show women something.  Perhaps you might feel it a bit
of an affront if someone felt you needed to be confronted by charts
and brochures before you bought your next car.  I'm not talking
about a need to inform the public, I am talking about a need to show
Brian these charts.  You might even get the feeling someone thought you
were incompetent to make a rational decision untill they had shown
you pictures and diagrams they thought were important... 


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos scores 749 and 745 on SATS!
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:14:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <BvAx7x.GC2@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
#In article <1992Sep28.181026.10388@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (The
#*official* Usenet virus) writes:
##In article <1992Sep24.033225.22205@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
###
###Speaking of SAT's and pro-force idiots, though, Patrick,
###should we tell the A.B. that the Franciscan University
###of Steubenville (home of the "Pro-life Activities" minor)
###gives academic scholarships to people who score a big
###1000?   That might give him something to shoot for when
###he finally gets out of high school.
##
##Aw, that's scary. You'd never get out of high school, then. 
#
#Poor ol' Chaney -- never stopped to think Susan might have gotten out of
#high school before he was born.  Actually, make that never stopped to think,
#period... 

Your second sentence is obviously correct, or POC meant to post
this little dribble to alt.non.sequitur.  

##Perhaps you'll get into Steubenville. As a test chimp, that is. 
#
#Not until you finish up *your* contract there, at least.  See you in
#2003...:-)

:-)

I guess this means Chaney/Hall made less than 1000, huh?

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers)
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Organization: Imaging Science Engineering & Technology, Xerox Corporation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:58:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.035207.29271@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU writes:
>Hey, Ron you git.  Get with it!  I noticed you deleted the line where
>I asked you to break your damn lines.  Well, DO IT.  It's kind of hard
>to argue^H^H^H^H^Hdiscuss things with you when key words disappear into
>the bit bucket.  Shesh.  'sides I get tired of breaking them for you.
>Remember it's the key labelled <return> or <cr> ... oh, hell, it's
>the big key on the right. Use it!
>
OK, OK ... I'm working on it ...

Let me guess, where you'd draw the line:
>  1 ns (1e-9 seconds) after fertilization of the egg?
>Why?  It don't look like a baby, it don't feel like a baby, it don't
>*smell* like a baby... maybe it's not a baby; so let's leave the
>little premie babies alone and discuss the real issue: early term
>abortions.

Ah, doesn't look, smell, taste, etc. like a baby.  Maybe it will grow up to be
a DUCK, or a TREE, of maybe a KAOLA BEAR.  The mere fact that it will grow up 
(if not prematurely killed) to be an adult proves the existance of such (in
miniature form) at '1 ns (1e-9 seconds) after fertilization of the egg.'

  Besides if you were so
>worried about abortions why didn't you encourage potential mothers
>to carry to term by adoption out of the waiting pool?  

Some close friends of mine who work at the local Crisis Pregnancy Center did 
just that recently.  I think they're half crazy, as they haven't had a baby
in their house for over 10 years.  

Seems, my 
>newspaper carries pictures of kids needing adoption regularly.
>Those mothers went through all that effort to produce a child just
>for you and you spurn it?  They see the waiting queue and say
>why bother since NO ONE wants the children that already exist.

That's simply not true.  I know of two couples personally, who had 
such 'fun' wading through paperwork, that they opted for private adoption. 
The drawback here is that it was VERY expensive.  One couple ended up adopting
three children in 2 years!  These children which you speak of aren't unwanted,
they are tied up in social services' paperwork.

rlg


-- 
Ron Goers @ Xerox Corporation     Email: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com

"Time flies like an arrow ...
 fruit flies like a banana"                                           
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh 'O wau no me ka ha'a ha'a
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:33:02 GMT

	I certainly agree that Rush Limbaugh is a sexist boor. Here's
my favorite example of what I have in mind:

	After Hurricane Andrew came and went, Madonna's new $4m Coral
Gables estate was left pretty smashed. According to RL, however, "it's
not the first time that some guy blew into town for a night, trashed
her, and left."

	This would seem to be about par for someone who deplores
feminism as having made opportunities for unattractive women. He even
calls feminists "feminazis," and snickers about why they are so
pro-abortion when they are all lesbians.

	And this is from someone who can hardly be called an Adonis.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 23:55:14 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Animal Rights and Anti-Abortion
	<1992Sep26.223024.3854@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>

 Martin Guerrero@po.berke writes

>In article <YekuyC_00WBLA8cFpq@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis
<ml3e+@andrew.cmu
>.edu> writes:
>>Mr. Kolker,
>>
>>    I thought your post made an excellent point.  Both the Animal Rights
>>movement and anti-abortion movement show the absurdity of granting
>>rights to objects that should not have such rights, though I do have a
>>strong desire to grant the Pythagorean Theorem a right to life.
> 
>The unborn is a member of homo sapiens.  I don't believe any other
>animal is capable of claming that.  
> 
>Why don't members of homo sapiens deserve the right to life?


Why would it even occur to anyone to suggest that zygotes have a right
to life?  GeneticCodeIdolatry or PreFetalIdolatry?  (We all know who to
thank.)

Zygotes are chemical codes for the production of a human being.  There
is no difference between killing a zygote and killing the Pythagorean
Theorem except that I would invite a zygote killer to my Nietzche
birthday party coming up October 15.  The theme this year is nihilism. 
Funny, it was the same theme last year.  The 1989 party had the theme
Cosecaeu '89, Thatcher '90, which was quite a success.  I'm inviting
many mammals to the party, but I don't think I'd invite you, Mr.
Guerrero.  I suspect you're some kind of speciesists--as absurd as
racism.  Mammals are fond of infanticide.  You'd probably object to all
the chic behaviors observed under the Darwinian Strobe Lights. 


Mr. Guerrero, I leave to you to celebate christmas with traditional
family values.

Michael Loomis



Newsgroups: talk.abortion