HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:45:17 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug19.011810.14987@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) continues to miss the point by writing:
> 
> In article <lefty-170892095020@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug16.002316.16782@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
> >(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
> >> 
> >> If we go by the pro-choice stance of being "intellegent" or "with a
> >> brain," that would exclude you in an instant.
> >
> >If we hadn't seen this already about 6,000 times, it would be hilarious.
> 
> And hasn't just been said by me, about you. 
> It's been said by others about you, too. 

I see.  Which others did you have in mind?  Stevie Franklin?  He doesn't
count.  Well, he only counts to five.

> >As it stands, it's simply pathetic.
> 
> Yes, it is pathetic. In how more than one person on this newsgroup,
> thinks about _you_, Lefty. 

Oh, I'm not too concerned with you and your fellow mouth breathers.  I
think referring to yourself as a "person" is putting on airs, however.  I'm
willing to give you a piece of advice, though.  "I know you are, but what
am I?" isn't generally considered to be much of a flame.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 21:21:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.185107.9237@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
|> 
|> Cathi, ALL pro-choicers lie to themselves, at least a little bit, about
|> what abortion actually IS.
|>

I for one don't lie to myself as to what an abortion is (the termination 
of a pregnancy), or as to what is involved in all the forms that termination
can take.

	--surgical abortion:    death of a fetus
	--spontanious abortion: death of a fetus
	--birth:                a live infant

I am aware that the most common abortions are spontanious abortions and
birth and that surgical abortions are in the minority and that laws 
prohibiting abortion must distinguish between all the forms of abortion, 
that they will require a violation of doctor-patient confidentiality, the
right to protection from self-incrimination and will be about as effective
as the war on drugs and prohibition.

I also realize that once a government has been granted the power to prohibit
abortion it has also gained the power to mandate abortion. I, for one, don't
wish to grant the government that much power.


-- 
--Bruce

"Truth is ultimately a philosophical concept,...,
 and standards of truth are adequate for practical
 purposes if they are substantially more reliable 
 then the system undergoing evaluation"
				C. E. Metz
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Just Plain LIES!! (was Re: The facts about Roe, Doe, and Colautti)
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:38:51 GMT

In article <28677@option.GBA.NYU.EDU> 
smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

> Just this weekend I asked DOD several questions.  Surprise, surprise: He
> hasn't responded.

I'm planning on writing a response to your post.  I'm giving a lot of
thought to your questions.  Please be patient. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Survivors of Abortion: The Dreaded Complication
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:56:54 GMT

In article <92216.234452ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes:
>In article <1992Aug3.001813.17959@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:
>>
>>In article <0jxx#0a@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>
>>>...the fact is that many
>>>dictionaries define abortion as the early termination of pregnancy.  By
>>>this definition, ANY C-section can be considered "an abortion".
>>
>>Where are these "many dictionaries", rocker, and are they worth the paper
>>they're printed on?
>>
>>        Abortion.  The knowing destruction of the life of an unborn child
>>        or the intentional explusion or removal of an unborn child from
>>        the womb OTHER THAN FOR THE PRINCIPAL PURPOSE OF PRODUCING A LIVE
>>        BIRTH or removing a dead fetus.
>>
>>        (Black's, 5th Ed., emphasis added)
>>
>>I'm getting sick of typing in this definition, rocker. Everyone please save
>>a copy they can refer to when they forget what "abortion" means...
>
>Since when has Black's been declared a dictionary.

What do YOU think it is, Linda? A kumquat?

>We all know its your bible Kevin, but it doesn't
>mean it applies to everyone.  Abortion is not
>always intentional.
>
>Abortion, whether you like it or not, is a medical
>not a legal term.

The _legality_ of abortion is the source of the controversy surrounding it.
There is, to my knowledge, no medical controversy _per se_ about abortion,
i.e. physicians know the success rates, mortality rates, risks, etc. In the
context of the abortion CONTROVERSY, therefore, the legal definition is the
only relevant one.

If you wish to discuss the non-controversial aspects of abortion, I suggest
you look among the sci.* groups for a suitable forum.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Humphrey should apologize to Mr. Chaney 
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:09:36 GMT

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

> [.. Re: Humphrey's refusal to apologize to Chaney ...]

> Sorry to repost the whole thing, but I thought it important to leave
> everything in context.  While I don't condone Patrick's choice of
> words, and under normal conditions I would expect to see an apology
> from him, I don't expect him to apologize.  

Well of course you don't expect him to apologize, you'd probably take 
Humphrey's side no matter what he said.  

> Mr Chaney, Mr Kellmeyer,
> and Mr Holtsinger have all gone on record here comparing pro-choicers
> to Nazis.  

I have never compared pro-choicers to Nazis.  You are making things up
in order to help Humphrey weasel out of apologizing.  


> To me that is much worse than Patrick's single racial
> comment 

Pure garbage.  We ain't playing a "tit for tat" game here.  Humphrey
should apologize to Mr. Chaney.  


> (which may indeed be a fact - Mr Chaney is black, and he may
> indeed have a fat ass).  

You don't seem to recognize the racist overtones of that remark.
Your comment is just as offensive as Humphrey's. 


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

Your post is a pathetic attempt to focus attention away from Humphrey's 
highly offensive remarks.  You may want to forget them, but I won't. 


>Gordon


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:33:57 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  <nyikos.714164172@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <nyikos.713885513@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter N
>
> >In a recent follow-up to "Another good reason not to vote for Bush",
> >Ms. Regard harped on a theme she hammered away at a little over a month
> >ago.  Back then she posted a statement which went about like this.
>
> >"NO OTHER HUMAN BEING on this planet has the right to occupy a woman's
> >body against her will, yet you would give fetuses that right?  I think
> >that's bogus."
>
> >Compare that to the following statement:
>
> >"NO OTHER HUMAN BEING on this planet has the right to have a fetus occupy
> >his/her body, yet you would give women and
> >girls past puberty that right?  I think that's bogus."

Compare them?  OK.  What Adrienne said is perfectly reasonable and makes
sense.  What you said does not.  Men have *just as much* right as women
to have a fetus inside them.  What they lack is not rights.

> >Like Ms. Regard, I have carefully isolated the class of humans that is
> >physically capable of the act in question, and lumped everyone else into
> >the OTHER HUMAN BEING category.

No, because that's not what she did.  "Occupying the woman's body against
her will" can also refer to rape.  And the use of lethal force is
permitted to terminate it.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: "Choice" of words.....
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:51:12 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville - CS Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: duncan.cs.utk.edu
Originator: lape@duncan.cs.utk.edu


	Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion,
	Pro-Abortion does mean Anti-Life.

	Pro-Life does not mean Anti-Choice,
	Pro-Choice does not mean Anti-Life.

	Pro-Life can mean Pro-Choice,
	but Pro-Responsibility is better than both.



-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your laundry phosphate free?  Help stop global pollution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Dirigible Boy Logic (was Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all thing) )apparently
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:53:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.172719.23531@u.washington.edu> darkstar@u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann) writes:

[proof deleted] 

Oh, and before you weasel out of it, I was referring to the
adult/minor sexual relations portion of statutory rape laws. 

>This is all very nice, and you may even have it right (though I am doubtful,  
>based on past performances).  I haven't read any coverage of the case.  You  
>still have not proven that a Pro-Choice position advocates sex between adults  
>and minors.  

No, but the premise that holds up the Pro-Choice position, holds up
legalization of sex between minors and adults. With the minors'
consent, of course. 

Have you ever heard of the French saying, "You gotta want not only
what you want, but what it leads to?" 

Well, you're facing the "what it leads to" right now. Whether or not
Pro-Choice _wants_ to advocate the Florida ruling or not, is
irrelevant as far as the judges seem to be concerned. 



===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
	        With the little girl's consent, of course. 
		 Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this? 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago)
Subject: CONFIRMED---> Re: Randall Terry running for Congress
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 05:42:39 GMT

After searching through a pile of papers, I finally found one of the 
two mentions of Randall Terry's bid for Congress. This was in the
July 30 edition of USA Today. It was also mentioned in the Chicago
Tribune, but that's the one I left on the train.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

OPERATION RESCUE LEADER TO RUN: Randall Terry is running for Congress.
The founder of Operation Rescue, the abortion foes who blockade
abortion clinics, is challenging five-term GOP Rep. Sherwood Boehlert 
of New Hartford, N.Y., an abortion rights supporter.  The campaign
will "not revolve solely around child killing," says Terry, running on 
the Right to Life ticket.  He says he'll air TV ads of aborted fetuses
and pornographic art funded by the National Endowment for the Arts.
Other issues: trade with China, women in combat and "the welfare state,
which is literally bankrupting America's soul."  Boehlert says Terry
"is one of the least popular people in the United States today. People
are offended by Randall Terry and his tactics."  Two years ago, the
Central new york Right to Life Federation bought billboards comparing
Boehlert, a co-sponser of the Freedom of Choice Act, to Hitler.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you imagine Randall Terry in *Congress*??? Side show city!

Vickie
Anti-abortion, Pro-adoption, Pro-birth control, Pro-sex education

                    *** PRO-CHOICE ***
 



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:21:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.140818.26240@pwcs.stpaul.gov> 
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>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?

I can't believe you could insult women in this manner.  You truly are 
a despicable person.

>Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>


Doug Holtsinger

From: loftis@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk Loftis)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:14:13 GMT
Subject: Re: MoRe on that Ten Commandment thing
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server
Newsgroups: talk.abortion


|Well to be honest, it does clear up one point, and that is
|your stand on the abortion issue. It does NOT clear up the
|above set of Questions. 
|

I am Pro-Choice, this means to me that each person has the right to
choose their stance on abortion and act occordingly.  Outlawing
abortions, do not give people the choice to have an abortion.  The 
inference of those that I will go to hell for letting others having a
choice does not stand in my books.  

Kirk
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Arthur S. DeMoss
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 20:36:33 GMT

In article <nyikos.713484831@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Aug8.011339.10252@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug7.004243.11921@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>># In article <1992Aug6.211819.15692@advtech.uswest.com> 
>># steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>># 
>># > NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood are obviously multi-faceted
>># > organizations.  Claiming they're solely "abortion on demand" is
>># > dishonest bullshit.
>># 
>># You mean to say that NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood do support
>># some restrictions on abortion? 
>
>>Indeed. I suspect all three of them would support restrictions
>>limiting those who perform abortions to licensed medical
>>professionals.
>
>Really?  When have they come out against the do-it-yourself "menstrual
>extraction" kits being peddled (legally? does anyone know?) in various states?

Oh, Planned Parenthood and a number of people in the AMA and other
places, have abhorred the "tapes of the menstrual extraction kit" 
craze being purported by the Feminist Women's Health Center and other 
groups. 

BTW, no pro-choice group today supports any restrictions on abortion
besides these home kits, perhaps. 

>Peter Ny.

===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WHO OWNS WHO?...or is it whom?...or what?
Date: 20 Aug 92 12:38:31 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <92225.110850ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Bir
>mingham) writes:

>>Mr. Miller it would appear you know nothing about pregnancy.

>Just how much do you know, Ms. Birmingham?  I'm not asking how much
>pro-choice and pro-abortion [see Forgach's re-post of my
>distribution-messed earlier posts for the difference]
>propaganda you've soaked up.  Just the facts, Ma'am.

>>Every pregnancy will cause some physical damage.

>So does every vaccination.  The question is, do the benefits
>outweigh the damages?

What benefits occur to the woman, Nyikos? [remember, we're talking about
those who don't want a baby] Also, I noticed you never responded to
rocker's post about various unkindly things that pregnancy does to the
body. I also wish, at this point, that it was possible for you to get
pregnant, and that you had this occur last week, as I'm fairly sure
that when faced with the actuality of the postition, your colors would
change faster than a chameleon's.

>I know this is false as regards pregnancies other than the
>first.  Are you sure it is true of first pregnancies?
>Also, do you have any idea how much physical damage an
>abortion of a first pregnancy causes the woman?

Anywhere between none and death. This is less to equal that of first,
or any other, birth. As for other than first pregnancies, they can cause
much damage and pain, and lasting scars. Ask the wife of a very close
friend of mine about her two C-sections. I'm sure she'll tell you it
was a trivial matter, and no damamge done. So much so, as a matter of
fact, that she had her tubes removed to prevent any other pregnancies.

I do believe you're a clueless twit, attempting to engage in a battle
of wits similar to a paper pusher handed a gun in a trench war. It doesn't
work, and you will be scathed, or, at the least, shown to be an utter
buffoon to all who witness your exploits.

>So far, I have not seen you address the very real physical
>and mental stresses that a woman undergoes before, during,
>and after having a fetus aborted.  Maybe you and "Jammer
>Jim" can work out a joint statement.

They are, according to C.E. Koop's report, no worse than those experienced
by carrying to term, and perhaps less. Or do you not wish to recall
that report, made by a pro-lifer who was honest enough to report facts,
and not skew his results to a desired end? You're beginning to enter
the DOD race for clueless lying twits. A few more statements like this,
and a couple of lies should put you two neck and neck. An altogether
boring display of male-chauvinistic misogynist ignorance romping in
rut.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
From: cook@sunloan.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: KILLfile created to prevent flamewar
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:10:54 GMT
Reply-To: cook@sunloan.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center

In article <omq5tlo@fido.asd.sgi.com>, cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J.
Silverio) writes:
|>
|>In article <1992Aug16.155304.2078@midway.uchicago.edu>,
eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu writes:
|>|So, people, if Keegan attacks me and I don't respond, it's not
|>|because he's right and I don't have a defense; it's because I
|>|didn't see the attack in the first place.
|>
|>Wise move, and one that will greatly help your peace of mind.
|>That debate would be just as stupid in reruns as it was the
|>first time.

Many of us did not find the debate, nor the topic thereof, to be
"stupid".  I think it would be highly unrealistic to deny that
there are those in the abortion rights movement who feel great
resentment over people who wish to restrict abortion rights, as
well as those who feel great resentment over people who wish to
have unrestricted abortion rights.

Ms. Bartley said that it would disturb her for certain abortions
to be legal, even if she didn't believe that these abortions 
would ever occur.  I, on the other hand, am disturbed by the
thought of making a law that addresses a problem that has not
been proven to exist.  I don't believe in legislating "just in
case", which is what it appeared Ms. Bartley was advocating in
our last debate.

In any event, I disagree with those who said the discussion was
pointless or damaging, I even disagree to a certain extent with
those who called it a flamewar.  Certainly people got pissed
about it, but the central point of the discussion was not
simply to attack.

|>Usenet is full of posters expert in the one-note samba, who'll
|>rant and rave on their topic long after anyone else is
|>interested.  Let them drone on all they want-- just refuse to
|>listen.  The man who invented the killfile deserves the Nobel
|>Peace Prize.

Nah, you just need to use nn.  

C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA

                      -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32728 alt.abortion.inequity:3185 soc.men:15275