HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Operation Rescue
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:24:17 GMT
Keywords: civil rights activists

In article <1992Dec26.183429.4243@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1162@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> 
> > Of course, I didn't say that illegal means wrong - that's
> > your own invention.  It's not even responsive to the fragment
> > that you quoted.  
> 
>   "Threads evolve, Finkelstein.  People can read an article and
>    reply to any piece of it or to the entire article.  They are
>    not required to stick to the subject of your choosing.  If
>    you don't want to discuss the new topic, no one will force
>    you to do so."
> 
>        <555@blue.cis.pitt.edu>

This is your answer, Reverend?  You responded to one of Susan's
articles in a way so as to imply that she had said that
illegal=wrong in some sort of absolute moral sense.  She
responded that she'd never said that, and you follow with this
non sequitur.

Great stuff, Reverend.

Dean Kaflowitz

"Yeah, bringing that Amazon enclave of women to America would just 
spoil everything.  I'd prefer to have them stay in the Amazon, 
so that I could go live them there." - Reverend Doug Holtsinger
 



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:55:43 GMT

> = (B. Munroe) writes:

>.....  Neither pro-choice or pro-life -- just pro-responsibility  .....

Don't be shy...tell us: would you support anti-abortion laws?  Is this
"pro-responsibility" the same as pro-lifers pretending if a woman
gets pregnant she should be forced to carry to term?

Thanks, Bob.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 18:33:53 GMT

Mr. Woodyatt writes (flames deleted),

>Several posters, myself included, have explained why we think the
>analogy isn't useful for aiding in the development of public policy.

Yes, but each explanation has suffered from one or more of the
following:

	o It relied on a logical fallacy.

	o It relied on an unsupported assertion.

        o It noted a difference but failed to argue its relevance.

A difference that has been noted by many, including myself, is the
position of the fetus inside a woman's body.  Simply noting the
difference is not enough, though.  The difference must be demonstrated
relevant to the conclusion drawn by the analogy.  In this case the
analogy was used to derive the following conclusion:

     If the argument

         "If you don't like abortion, don't have one."

     is a valid one for keeping abortion legal, then

         "If you don't like slavery, don't keep a slave."

     is a valid argument for legalized slavery.

If one wants one's argument to be compelling, the connection is best
not left to the reader.  If it is, however, and the reader doesn't
make the connection, the proper response is to make the connection
explicit.  An improper response would be to flame the reader for not
making the connnection.


gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>In my reply I wrote that in some cultures "law" may not be the same
>as we know it.  It might even take the form of peer pressure.

I noted this.  However, if one chooses to call everything that can be
used to enforce slavery "law" then the observation,

    Without law there is no slavery.
    Without law there is abortion.

simply begs the question.  A person might just as well reply, "I also
include as law anything which allows abortion; therefore without law
there is no abortion."  Each relies on the same logical fallacy.


                                Gregg M. Skinner
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Dean Kaflowitz pretending not to have seen a post by me
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 13:34:24 GMT
Summary:  Peter just gets stupider every day.

In article <nyikos.725751710@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Dec28.141705.9734@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >In article <34617@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU>, smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
> >> In article <nyikos.725143125@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
> >> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes: 
> >> >One year after the deed was done?  Even Dean Kaflowitz gave no hint
> >> >of extrasensory powers of this magnitude.
> 
> >I would be interested in seeing some support or documentation
> >from "Doctor" Giggles Nyikos for this remark.
> 
> Ask Adrienne for it.  She saw it, because shortly thereafter
> she made a joke about releasing everyone from her "thrall"
> when she went on vacation.
> 
> I suggested that Adrienne's extrasensory powers were greater than
> your alleged (by you) powers of precognition, clairvoyance, and
> (by implication) telepathy and was keeping you in her thrall.

This is amazing.  Your support for your claim that I have
extrasensory powers is that you claimed it once before?

That's some credible evidence, "Doctor."

"Doctor," you are a stupid, stupid man.

Dean Kaflowitz

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53036 talk.politics.misc:65363
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Speaking of the Oppression of the Capitalist System....
Keywords: abortion, digoxin, laminaria, pro-death
Date: 25 Dec 92 21:56:56 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
] pn> =nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
] pn> The cold light of reality begins with the fee schedule.  Sixteen to 22
] pn> weeks, $750; 22 to 26 weeks, $1800.  Beyond 26 weeks, $2200.  
] 
] I see your not too proud to go for a few cheap shots.
] 
] (1) Nice innuendo.  (Do you do mathemtical proofs by innuendo too?)
]     Care to make (& defend) a CLEAR statement that Dr. Tiller is primarily 
]     motivated by money?  <y,n>
] 
] (2) IF the fact the Dr. Tiller charges money for abortions demonstrates
]     that he's only in it for the money, THEN what can we conclude when
]     Dr.s & hospitals charge even more for live births?  


Can anyone out there post the fee's for:

1. a pre_term labor, and what it costs to stop one.

2. a pre_term delivery and associated ICU costs.

3. a C-section Delivery

4. a 'natural delivery' in a hospital, that is planned.

5. an EMERGENCY 'natural delivery' when the elapse time between
when the mother says: "Honey, I think it is TIME!" and her breaking
water is less than 50 minutes... { we will of course, not count
in this package the associated cost of getting a boat crew out,
and the general complications of clearing a landing for the
ER crew to bring mother and daughter ashore.... }


While we are at it:

1. cost to patch a flesh wound in an extremity.

2. cost to patch a gunshot wound that generates a compound fracture.

3. cost to patch a gunshot wound that generates an abdominal opening.

4. cost to patch a gunshot wound that lodges a round in the proximity of:

	4.1: the heart, requiring a heart specialist

	4.2: the cranial area, requiring a brain specialist.

5. cost to patch any gunshot wound that has been allowed to
	fester for more than 24-48hrs...


Or is Nykios merely pointing out the more complicated medical
procedures tend to cost more than simple medical procedures?


ciao
drieux


ps: but I think Nykios has clearly proven that the
Repressive Capitalist System is Exploiting the Working
Class for the enrichment of the Bourgiese Capitalists Ruling Class
and hence must be overthown by force of arms by the Revolutionary
Vanguard Party within the clear dictates of the correct
interpretation of the Marxist-Lenninist-Maoist-nonCapitalistRoader
dialectics of History.

Or was he just supporting the Clintonesque notion about
national health insurance for all?????


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:53:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.130048.7921@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> 
edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) writes:

> since defending one's bodily rights requires directly "violating" the
> rights of another, it is wrong to do so.  

So if a pregnant woman drinks alcohol and takes drugs,
thus 'attacking' her child and violating the child's
right to bodily autonomy, does it follow that the child
should have the right to 'abort' the woman? 

> For example, if a burglar
> enters a person's home, does the homeowner not have a right to fight off
> the burglar simply because that would directly "violate" the burglar's
> bodily rights?  

Yes, the homeowner has the right to fight off the burglar,
because the burglar committed an immoral and illegal act.   
The mere existence of an innocent child in the woman's womb
is neither immoral nor illegal.  

>-- edp (Eric Postpischil)


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Subject: Re: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
Organization: NRL
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:33:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.065056.50307@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com 
(Larry Margolis) writes:
> In <nyikos.725150678@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu 
(Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >
> >Meanwhile, 1,600,000 unborn children, most of them already in the
> >fetus stage, are aborted each year in the USA alone.
> 
> This would be interesting to see you document this, since the dictionary 
says:
> fetus (n)
> DEFINITIONS:
>     an unborn or unhatched vertebrate esp.
>     after attaining the basic structural plan
>     of its kind; specif : a developing human
>     from usu. three months after conception
>     to birth
> (c) G. & C. Merriam
> 
> and the statistics I have show that more than 90% of all abortions in 
the USA
> are performed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
> 
> I know you like neither dictionaries nor statistics; I'm taking bets on 
which
> you'll attack first.  (The odds-on favorite is that you'll run away 
again.)
> --
> Larry Margolis

Larry.....Oh Laaaaarrryyy.  This is the ghost of old Dan Webster hauting 
you.  Have you looked up the definition of "child" lately, Larry?  You and 
Peter can run down that path, together.

(just passing along a voice from the spirits.  You may unjoin hands and 
open your eyes now)

- Paul

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Is Fire Bombing a Legitimate Form of Free Speach.
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:21:46 GMT

> = Steve Novak:
>> = (Peter D. Hampe) writes:

>Unless you're firebombing your own property, and not claiming insurance,
>firebombing is legal.                
                ^^^^^

Oops.  That should read, "illegal", not "legal".

Penitently yours,

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Peter & Gordon
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 03:47:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.234911.22366@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><nyikos.725748973@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>><1992Dec30.004116.8052@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>><nyikos.725147807@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>><1992Dec22.010745.13877@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>...
>>>>I posted "The Mendacity of Susan Garvin, Part 1" just now.  There will
>>>>be SEVERAL more parts to this series, unlike the one-post shot against
>>>>Gordon Storga, who is turning out to be much less malicious in his 
>>>>accusations than Susan.  I've even developed a bit of fondness for him,
>>>>as for a wayward child.  And he is the child of his parents, and of the 
>>>>universe, as pointed out in the fictional dialogue with Suzanne.  He is 
>>>>also a child of the 20th century, of which you will be reading more in
>>>>upcoming posts, but y'all will have to wait a while unless bozos like
>>>>Novak and Garvin and Mezias and Lefty and Kaflowitz decide to post 
>>>>*documented* accusations against me, thereby reducing their number a
>>>>hundredfold.
>>
>>>I'm truly touched by your open admittance of your feelings for me, Uncle
>>>Peter.  May I call you Uncle Peter?
>>
>>Sure, unless there is an SAT-type in-joke involved, like somebody allowing
>>others to call him "Uncle" is sufficient reason to flame him for the
>>rest of his net.life.
>
>No in-joke I know of...  I'm suffering from the flu right now so it would
>be difficult for me to even think of being that subtle for now.
>
Say Gordon, do you suppose it bothers Petey at all that his new
"nephew" is one of the most pro-abortion people on the net? I'll bet
he won't send you a birthday card unless you change your views... :)

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Darcy's hypocrisy
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:24:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.190844.5118@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1992Dec29.032347.20117@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>> [reporting obvious, joking forgeries to "the authorities"]
>>
>>Yeah, right, Susie. "I was only following orders". Where has that been
>>heard before? Ever been to Nuremburg? Just out of curiosity, do you use
>>a gas oven, or an electric?
>
>Do you think that comparing Susan Garvin to a Nazi simply because she
>followed her site rules regarding the reporting of forgery attempts is
>really appropriate?  

I think it's appropriate for anyone who hides behind "the rules", Larry. Susie
showed their true net.cop colors by trying to get another netter in trouble 
for what was plainly and obviously a joke. No intent to deceive -> no forgery.
If one of my users brought such a thing to my attention, then policy or no
policy, I'd probably tell them to shove their "forgery" and grow the hell up.
Hopefully, Susie's admins are hip to the ways of the Net too. I'd hate to
think that her actions obligated some policy robot at CMU to waste valuable 
time and resources trying to "track down" and "deal with" this so-called 
"forgery"...

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52839 alt.atheism:24255 talk.religion.misc:24521
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Keywords: Holtsinger admits a lie
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:07:36 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec23.053112.13220@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
(Doug "get yer fat black ass down here" Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1103@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
#sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug "get yer fat black ass down 
here" Holtsinger) writes:
#
### Patrick "get yer fat black ass down here" Humphrey writes:
#
## Using quotes around that phrase implies that Patrick actually
## said that.  I don't believe he did.  
#
#Humphrey said, "March your fat black ass down here and tell
#me I'm a liar, to my face."  

In other words, I was right.  Patrick didn't say the phrase you
attributed to him.  Why did you lie about it, Reverend?

#I'll use that quote when I
#reply to him in the future.  No doubt you'll still be
#defending his remark.

I've yet to defend his remark, DOD.  You're lying again.  


## I've asked Holtsinger repeatedly
## to provide the article number for the quote, but he doesn't reply.
## I think it's because the only person who has said "get yer
## fat black ass down here" in talk.abortion is named Doug Holtsinger.
#
#  <1684554D.HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> 

The article in question does not include the phrase "get yer fat
black ass down here."  Since I was right as to the origin of
the phrase, I'm sure the righteous Reverend won't object to his
new attribution.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 22:37:50 GMT

In article <C01HzK.MrE@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.174350.2568@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>> In article <C015n2.Ipw@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) 
>writes:
>> >In article <28DEC92.21004829@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu 
>writes:
>> >
>> >> Do you know of any way to give rights to a fetus without taking away 
>> >rights 
>> >> from the pregnant woman?
>> >> 
>> >>                              .... Heather.
>> >
>> >
>> [Paul's dodge deleted]
>...
>
>Marks deletion of my post:
>               ------------------
>"Nice "trick" question.  Like, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
>The question pre-supposes the conclusion that
>
>1) all rights by definition are inviolate
>
>2) the rights of the unborn child will automatically conflict with the 
>mother.
>
>3) the pregnant woman has, by definition, higher priority rights than 
>others.
>
>But, Heather, I'll grant you your question does have a noble ring to it.  
>It plays well across the country.  Keep up the double talk."
>
>         ---------------
>> Nice dodge Paul. Now try answering the question.
>> 
>
>You're right Mark, how silly of me to forget.  Yes, I have stopped beating 
>my wife.

I'm very happy that you've stopped beating your wife. Now answer
Heathers question.
Feel free to dodge again.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 02:05:37 GMT

 (vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:

[mega snip]

: Once again, Ms. Smith went and had sex without using her brain.  Murder
: is murder.  There is no such thing as a potential citizen except in the legal
: sense.  Morally and scientifically life begins at fertilization, and so does
: citizenhood.

This contravenes the 14th Amendment which states: "All persons BORN or
naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. ..."
Fetuses are not citizens.

Let's assume that the conceptum (z/e/f) is a citizen.  Then, by the Equal 
Protection clause and the Apportionment Clause of the 14th Ammendment, the 
conceptum must be counted for the purposes of representation within the House 
of Representatives.

From my past readings (I don't have the books with me now, but I will find them
in the library) I have learned that it is possible to separate the cells of the
blastomere and produce effective twins, quadruplets, etc. (I don't remember how
many identical siblings can be produced this way, I'll find that too).  If all
these conceptums are citizens, then it should be possible to populate Rhode
Island with more citizens than the rest of the country combined.  Thus, in the
House of Representatives, the will of Rhode Island can hold sway over the will
of the rest of the country.  For that matter, the entire population of Rhode
Island can be sent to Congress and the rest of the country would be supporting
the Rhode Islanders.

Similarly, the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Ammendment would require a 
change to the IRS tax code, allowing the conceptum to be used as a tax
deduction for personal income taxes (currently, only a person who is born is 
allowed for the purposes of deductions).  What about those rare women who can 
conceive but who cannot bear a conceptum to term?  If such a woman concieves 
once per month, do we allow her to claim 12 tax deductions for the year?


These are the problems inherent in the concept of conceptum as citizen.

:
: >SJM
:
: Edward Simmonds
:
:
: - My opinions are my own... but they are also perfectly correct -

Your opinions are your own, but they contain some flaws.
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fictional Gordon-Suzanne Dialogue on Trumped-up Case 3
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:25:31 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec30.003128.7037@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><nyikos.724953938@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>Apparently my netserver was mute for a while before it went deaf, because
>>the dialogue you see below was supposedly posted, but Gordon never saw it,
>>and Nadja Adolf, to whom I mailed a "sneak preview", never let Gordon 
>>know of its existence.

Peter, dear -
You didn't give me permission to send it on to Gordon. In the absence of said
permission, I had no intention of passing on personal mail.
Netiquette, you see.