HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush (was Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 01:52:56 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


In article <1992Aug12.190214.27080@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>Thank you very much. I'll make sure my vote goes to George Herbert
>Walker Bush.

Won't happen Inturdgent.  The voting age is 18 so you won't be able to
vote for president until the election in 2000.  By that time Bush will
be 76 years old and I really doubt he will be running.


>                        Robert Casey for President '96!

You still won't be old enough.

>BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney

Dan King
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The word "health" (Was Re: Bush, Clinton, and the Abortion Issue)
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:36:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <Bt90Cu.KAq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jamcdani@zia.ucs.indiana.edu writes:
>
>(BTW, I got the new issue of _Current Directions in Psychological 
>Science_ today, which has an article on women and depression. It 
>briefly mentions effects of childbirth, abortion, infertility, etc. 
>If anyone is interested, I'll post it; if not, I won't waste the  
>bandwidth.)

I am interested.  Please mail me a copy if you don't post it.

Sarah McCabe
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
From: HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Patrick on the VM side)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is "abortion on demand"
Date: 15 Aug 1992 02:47:19 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <Bszq1o.J55.2@cs.cmu.edu>
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
 
>
>In article <1992Aug14.151939.28848@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>#In article <Bsz9nx.41y.1@cs.cmu.edu>
>#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>#
>#
>#I'm still waiting for you to provide proof of your accusation Ms. Garvin.
>#In case you forgot, here it is again:
>
>[text deleted]
>
>I saw it, Holtsinger.  I also saw you provide the proof by fabricating
>evidence yet again
>
>I guess it's part of your master plan to make a fool out of
>yourself.  It's working, by the way.
>
>Susan
>
>(I can imagine what would happen if one of DOD's committee
>saw any of his Usenet articles...
 
I wouldn't be so sure...remember, we're talking about NCSU -- and they
saw nothing amiss with a CompSci major who thought that using 'talk'
meant breaking into someone else's terminal...
 
--PLH, glad he got hhis higher education outside of NC, even if it
*was* at UH...
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Another Wise Prediction from Suzanne (was Re: Barry Goldwater)
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:39:45 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):

>> i'm glad that it is (too late). i think the choice issue is the
>> sigle-most important factor which will swing the election to the
>> democrats.

>BLAH HA HA HA HA!   You wish!   The ABORTION issue is the single-most
>important factor which will swing the election to the pro-lifers!

Oh, Suzanne, you've done it now.

The number of people archiving this statement to toss back in your face after
Election Day is, I'm sure, countless.  But I'll be happy to join them.  You're
going to remember this statement; and you're going to have to eat those words
as well, I'll wager.

But don't worry too much, Suzanne.  From your statements, it looks like
you can at least still look up to Bush as a superior orator.

Tim Lynch
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: The word "health" 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:05:14 GMT

In article <Bt90Cu.KAq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> 
jamcdani@zia.ucs.indiana.edu writes:

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

>> The situation we have today is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-
>> demand.  The Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade does not permit the 
>> states to prohibit abortions even when the fetus is viable.  The very
>> broad definition of "health" given by the Court includes emotional 
>> and psychological health.  A pregnant woman carrying a viable fetus
>> need only find a physician who's willing to perform the abortion for 
>> her "mental health".

> I won't join the war over whether this interpretation is correct, 
> but I have one question. Does anyone think that mental health is
> somehow less important than physical health? 

It's not really a question of whether mental health is less important 
than physical health, but rather, how can "mental health" be defined
without inviting abuse?  Before Roe v. Wade, some states permitted 
abortions for reasons of "mental health", and that exception was
intended for severe cases (i.e. women who were suicidal).  But 
doctors tended to abuse that definition by giving "mental health"
a much more liberal interpretation, and they generally got away
with it.

The same problem also applies to the definition of "physical
health", although to a much lesser extent, since physical health 
problems are much more easily diagnosed than mental health problems.  

> Would a severe post-
> partum depression not affect mother and child as much as a severe
> physical complication, in anyone's mind? Or could a mental health
> danger be easier to fabricate?

You can't really predict whether a woman will suffer from post-partum
depression.  I think it's a bit extreme to say that a woman should be 
entitled to kill the child because she *might* suffer from post-partum 
depression sometime in the future.

> (BTW, I got the new issue of _Current Directions in Psychological 
> Science_ today, which has an article on women and depression. It 
> briefly mentions effects of childbirth, abortion, infertility, etc. 
> If anyone is interested, I'll post it; if not, I won't waste the  
> bandwidth.)

I would like to see the article.

>    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology


Doug Holtsinger


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Study of Numbers 5 in relation to abortion discussion
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:44:51 GMT

In article <fRcJ830@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.002134.16131@cs.yale.edu> 
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>"distend: To swell out or expand from or as if from internal pressure."
>>[American Heritage, ISBN: 0395-32944-2]
>>BTW, just a warning: The tactic of generating another dictionary
>>entry with a different entry for "distend" won't work. You'll have
>>to go back to the original text to make your case, because all
>>you'll be able to show with another dictionary entry is that
>>the text is ambiguous, which only serves to undermine your conclusion.
>
>Fairly sophomoric chess moves there, you've been reading Machiavelli's
>The Prince again, haven't you? However, and of course none the less, the
>word distend is very poetic. The roots may provide some insite:
>dis = apart	ex = out	tendere = to stretch
>I leave it as an exercise for the student to figure out the meaning of
>distend and extend, and no, I will not be providing references.
Have you sunk so low that argument by etymology is the best
you can do, Mr. Harvey? I gave a simple reference to an English
dictionary which would tell you what distend DOES mean. However,
I ALSO made it quite clear that I regard bickering about the
English meanings of a translated document to be pretty pointless
and suggested you go back to the original Hebrew to prove your
point. Burden of proof and all that.

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32727 alt.flame:12217
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Summary: Whatta maroon.
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:19:21 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Patrick, wondering where these morons *come* from.

In article <1992Aug20.172947.3242@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <Bt9q3K.As@rice.edu> 
>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>
>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>>> Come on, Steve.  Let's see just how much of a boy you are.  March your
>>> fat black ass down here and tell me I'm a liar, to my face. 
>>> 					- PatricKKK L. Humphrey  
>
>> That's right.  I wrote it, and I apologized to anyone else who was offended
>> by it.  The only apology you'll get from me is when you show enough backbone
>> to come down here and get it in person.  If you're too chicken for that, hey
>> -- you're the one that has to live with that...
>
>I'm offended that you did not apologize to Steve Chaney for that remark.
>Apologize and get it over with.  Nobody is going to hoot and holler over
>it.  I will continue to ask you to apologize to Steve Chaney.  

You're offended?  My heart bleeds for you.  Now fuck off and die.
(But if you want to continue looking like Rasmussen's heir, be my guest.
Maybe I should tell the folks at RUPD to be looking for another visitor? :-)


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

        Beware of being the Roller when there's nothing left to roll...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: The Red Button Scenario
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 04:17:26 GMT

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

>In article <1992Aug10.225442.7544@wdl.loral.com> 
>bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:

>>sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Steven Arnold) writes: 

>>> 	To help clarify the issue, let me offer "The Red Button Scenario."

>> I love it. This whole post was just amazing. Irrationality on parade.
>> Truly bizarre.

>It was no more irrational or bizarre than the "famous violinist" scenario
>that the pro-abortionists like to trot out, or rocker's "The Value of a
>Man" post.  

Interesting.  The only medical doctor who posts to this group labels
_The Value of a Man_ as "the best analogy to what women go through
during pregnancy that I've ever seen", quite a few women who have had
children laud the post as being parallel to their experience, and yet
you, who are neither of these things, smugly label it as "irrational
and bizarre".

Is it that threatening to face what you are proposing on a personal
level?  Was the emotional impact so great that you immediately
needed to write the post off so that you didn't have to deal with
the issues I raised?

It would certainly seem to have affected you, since you continue to
mention it long after the last posting of it.

>Doug Holtsinger

                       -rocker

>"Take responsibility for your children, or we will force you to do it."
> -- Bill Clinton, speaking at the Democratic National Convention

Clinton is the candidate who is truly pro-life.  Not anti-abortion,
with which the phrase "pro-life" is mistakenly associated.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.discrimination
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: So judge lockett ends all 'agism'.....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 23:43:36 GMT

kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge) writes:
] No, according to Judge Lockett, if there is a right to privacy which
] invalidates parental consent abortion laws, that same right to privacy
] invalidates statutory rape laws. I imagine that his logic ran to the effect
] that if a minor is competant to decide to have an abortion without adult
] approval, then that same minor is surely competant to decide whether or not
] to have sex.


Interesting reasoning process going here....

Some how I do not see how 'parental consent' has ever been
a factor in 'statuatory rape.'

I thought It was just another one of those General Purpose
Laws designed to protect the Young, from the Ravages of
Rampant HeteroSexuality....

Notice also that if TheJudges Policy were carried on
through that If we invalidate parental consent on the
abortion issue, Notice that this also will allow
juviniles to get drivers licences, and own hand guns,
and drink hard liQor, and see X-Rated Movies, and
generally be Held Responsible for their own LIVES....

{ scary thought that one... I mean, actually holding
persons to be responsible for their own lives... what
WILL those Radicals Start thinking about NEXT... }

Not Bad, especially as they are already being set up
to be taxed, and one MUST have an SSN number for one's
kids by the time they are TWO.... 

Might as well Go whole HOG and say any able body person
is now liable for national service....

Kome On Kluge, Lets Go For the Big Ones......


ciao
drieux





-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What is Sex to God?
Date: 13 Aug 92 07:09:37 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<adams.713117979@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><adams.712851780@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) said:
>>Seems to me if Jesus wanted to tell his disciples that, he would have just
>>said that.  But he specifically mentions hating parents without talking
>>about *why*.  He says, if you don't hate you parents (no reason specified)
>>then you cannot be my follower.
>
>>In other scripture he specifcally talks about coming here to cause
>>derision among families, to pit father against son, and mother against
>>daughter.
>
>These two verses both tell the same story.  Loving Christ and following Him
>will cause the break-up of families, differences between people and all
>sorts of other problems.

No, no.  Jesus explictely claims to have come here *to cause* families to
break-up.  He doesn't say, "Because of your love for me you may need to
turn away from your families."  He says he came here to pit father against
son, etc...

>Basically, the Love you show for God must be so great and total, that the
>love you show to others seems like hate by comparrison.

Uh Steve, aren't you commanded to love your enemies?

>>Yours is a somewhat liberal interpretation of his *exact* words.
>
>You're not the first to tell me that...;-)  But then again, most of my
>fundamentalist friends flame me more than atheists do...

Well, you are more well reasoned than most I've dealt with here on the
net.  We just may have to agree to disagree.

Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32411 alt.politics.elections:10918
From: PA113718@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: politics
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:47:24 GMT
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

In article <1992Aug18.211708.13144@pwcs.stpaul.gov>
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>A pro-life delegate was interviewed on-camera last night.  When
>asked if there was a place for pro-choice Republicans, he said
>(and I'm quoting from memory, so please excuse me): "Sure, the
>Democratic Party."
>
>Btw, I disagree that the Republicans are extremists.  I would say
>that the Republican leadership is composed of extremists.
>

Actually, it is at least as often a case of the extremist rank-and-file
Republicans' driving moderate-at-heart leaders into hard right positions.
This is certainly what happened to Bush on abortion and any number of other
issues.  The reason Buchanan's speech went over as boffo is that so many
of the party faithful secretly share his spiteful, intolerant, quasi-fascist
sentiments.

Don't let the fact that many party regulars are split over abortion fool
you into thinking there are a lot of warm-hearted Republicans floating
around out there.  It's just that they tend to draw the line on
government-inforced morality right where it begins to affect *them*.
In other words, mandatory life sentences for drug offenders are okay
with them because they can't see Biff getting busted for dealing (he probably
wouldn't need the money, after all);  but Muffy could very well end up
needing an abortion, so they want to try to reserve that right for themselves.
It's just another form of selfishness.


>--
>Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
>"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger
>


           Tom G.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: L. L. Bean allows anti-choice candidate to use company property
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:16:52 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <BszDLt.G94@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com
(R. Cage) writes in response to my original post:

>Batting .333 there; at least she's pro-choice on the right of
>self-defense and firearm recreation.

Last time I checked this was Talk.abortion.  On Talk.abortion,
anti-choice is shorthand for wanting to restrict the right to choose
abortion.  Is that somehow unclear to you?

>Gay rights... I can see that from both sides.  I don't like
>people picking on my friends, but neither do I like goverment
>mandating that people have to deal with others.  If business
>wants to reject paying customers or good employees, that's
>stupid, but being stupid shouldn't be a crime.

The government has an interest in civil rights.  You seem to have a
problem with how those have been defined.  What alternative definition
do you propose?

>Now if someone can get her to see that government control of
>reproduction and the doctor-patient relationship is anathema to
>the philosophy of limited government, maybe she'll come around.

I doubt it.  The profile of her in the NY Times suggests a foaming at
the mouth Buchananite.  I find that this kind of philosophy shares
little with libertarianism.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:06:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.174314.4087@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>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.  
>
>Refraining from sexual intercourse does not mean refraining from sex, 
>since there's always oral sex, anal sex, and mutual masturbation, among 
>other forms of sex.  There's a wide variety of possibilities besides
>the missionary position.  Please don't confuse "sexual intercourse"
>with "sex". 
>

 idiots

 If we were talking about other forms of sex and not intercourse we 
 wouldn't have to worry about an abortion now would we?
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 04:50:22 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  <1992Aug21.220157.14755@noao.edu>  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
> Of course the vast majority of pre-teen girls _are_ virgins.

Of course.  I was thinking early teen, not pre-teen.  My mistake.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: What is sex to God?
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 07:17:46 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Aug7.202201.1474@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
><1992Aug6.174908.29278@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com writes:
>> <1992Aug4.140649.25196@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) said:
>> ><1992Jul28.144250.27023@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY ) :
>> >>In <1992Jul27.175612.3607@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com writes:
>> >>>> Scripture specifically tells you to hate your parents.  Do you?
>> >>>> Gordon
>> >>>
>> >>>  I'd don't suppose you'd mind amplifying this, would you?  With the 
>> >>>supporting context?
>> >
>> >>Matthew 10:32-40 or so.  Jesus was giving his friends directions on how to
>> >>become a good little disciple.  It's also at this point that he admits to
>> >>not bringing peace to the world. He declares that family members will be
>> >>the enemies to becoming a good follower and that hatred of them is the
>> >>proper thing to do.

OOooops!!!  I really screwed up this one.  It was actually Luke, not
Matthew.  That's what I get for "discussing" different areas of the bible
with 3 different people at the same time.  I retract my "hate" comments
wrt Matthew.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.