HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 22:55:20 GMT
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <1992Jul26.180302.19982@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> Not so arbitrary at all.  When the brain is gone, whatever you have
|> left isn't a human being.

As far as I'm concerned, if you have 46 chromosomes, you're a human
being--brain or not.

|> As a hypothetical question, how would you
|> prove that YOU are human, alive, and a discrete being immune from
|> being 'aborted'?

I would say that if you're not physically attached to somebody else's
circulatory system, you're immune from being "aborted".

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
     "Faith:  not *wanting* to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche
From: jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Pro-Choice
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:22:35 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: APRDL, Motorola Inc., Austin Texas

>Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute
>Lines: 13
>Nntp-Posting-Host: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu

>I think I'll jump in here.

>This thread has drifted into a argument of Pro-life/Pro-Abortion. 
>The heart of this issue is not rather you are Pro or Anti abortion,
>the issue to be decided here is who is going to make the decision 
>George Bush and his Holy Supreme Court or the women who should be
>able to decide for themselves under their constitutional rights.

>You can be Pro-Choice and not be Pro-Abortion, it's a question of 
>rights not morality.


>Tim 

Very good Tim.

At last a voice of reason is heard.  I'm sure we have all heard the
statement "if this were a man's choice we would not be debating it now!"

Obviously many of many don't remember why abortion was made legal to begin
with.  The only thing repealing RvW would do is make it more difficult for
a poor women to make this choice.  I know of no one who likes the idea
that such a choice should have to be made, however, it certainly should
be left up to the person most effected by it.  In fact that is what this
is all about, whether all women should have this option or should it be
limited to those rich enough to travel.            

As far as King George is concerned,  This may be the straw that broke the
camel's back.  It looks as if he will have lots of time to go home to Maine
and fish after November.  
James L. Berry  jcj6@aslan-aprdl.sps.not.com                 
Dolphins?  Oh I love Dolphins!                
They taste like Chicken!!
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 26 Jul 92 18:03:02 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc

In article <1992Jul23.160807.6096@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>In article <00711843674@elgamy.sccsi.com>, elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
>|> Au contraire. The medical profession as a whole draws the line for the end
>|> of life as being "displays brainwaves compatible with human life." Brain
>|> waves go flat, boom, you're allowed to disconnect the heart pump and
>|> respirator and ship the stiff off to the morge.
>
>This is merely an accepted medical and legal convention and is quite 
>arbitrary.

Not so arbitrary at all.  When the brain is gone, whatever you have
left isn't a human being.  As a hypothetical question, how would you
prove that YOU are human, alive, and a discrete being immune from
being 'aborted'?

>
>|> What John Haugh is saying is that perhaps we should apply this same
>|> standard to the BEGINNING of life, too.
>
>Maybe we should.  I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, I'm just
>saying it's arbitrary.  Even if we do accept this by convention, we
>still have to decide if its "life" takes precedence over its host's
>desire not to have it attached to her.

It would appear that if we simply follow the the convention and say
that it must have human brainwaves to be considered 'human' that we
only start running into restrictions in the latter half of the second
trimester.  At this point, I think most people would wonder at
abortion anyway (you very soon thereafter arrive at viability, at
which point it could be argued that you can only kill in
self-defense). 

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: the Lottery (Was: Car licensing fees)
Date: 31 Jul 92 00:39:46 GMT
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA

In article <04Lqr*BK0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <7018@lib.tmc.edu>, Jay Maynard writes:
>
>> I play the lottery exactly because I feel it should be encouraged, as the only
>> voluntary (and, according to libertarians, moral) tax around.
>
>The lottery is a tax on stupidity and ignorance.  Why do you think that it is
>moral for the government to cheat those who can least afford it?
>

Why do you think you can presume that the majority of Texans are not capable
of making rational spending decisions?  How do you presume that someone who
has bought a lottery ticket could not afford it?  Anyone who has purchased a 
lottery ticket obviously could afford it.  Not everyone who has bought a
ticket considers themselves stupid, ignorant, or cheated.

I myself will not buy a ticket, but I think it is good source of income for
the state.
-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lonestar.org    
tom@europa.lerctr.org   	tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: separation of church and state
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 19:30:26 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <7036@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> I find Michael's model of respect as an account, with debits and credits, to
|> be a useful one. Teachers, police officers, and other authority figures get an
|> initial positive balance; they can either add to it or withdraw from it by
|> their actions. If the account goes negative, then guess what: I've lost any
|> respect for them.

I give all people who I don't know the same initial positive balance. 
I see no reason to give a higher balance to certain people based on
what they do for a living.

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
     "Faith:  not *wanting* to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 16:00:52 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <1992Jul22.202903.27854@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> Well, I'm not so sure of that.  I mean, it's obviously living TISSUE,
|> but so is my finger.  It has human DNA, but so does my finger.  What
|> makes an embryo (foetus comes later, I believe) so "obviously a living
|> organism" rather than simply being a growth attached to the mother?

It's a living organism AND a growth attached to the mother.  I would
say the same about a cyst, by the way.  The point is, the way you
categorize it biologically is completely independent of how you define
its legal status.  Why do some people think they have to pretend it's 
not human in order to justify a woman's right to evict an unwanted
"visitor" in her womb?

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
     "Faith:  not *wanting* to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche
From: rbutera@is.rice.edu (Rob Butera)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Car licensing fees
Date: 31 Jul 92 00:15:54 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rice University

In article <04Lqr*BK0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
|> In article <7018@lib.tmc.edu>, Jay Maynard writes:
|> 
|> > I play the lottery exactly because I feel it should be encouraged, as the only
|> > voluntary (and, according to libertarians, moral) tax around.
|> 
|> The lottery is a tax on stupidity and ignorance.  Why do you think that it is
|> moral for the government to cheat those who can least afford it?

And, even not arguing on moral grounds, isn't it a baltant hypocrisy for the
government to outlaw an activity (i.e. gamling) unless it runs it?  Sounds 
like the "don't try this at home ... these are experts" line of reasoning.

-- 
Rob Butera - ECE grad student   Rice University, Houston, TX   rbutera@rice.edu

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" - Ronald Reagan, 1980
"Why should we figure out how to fix your colon cancer?" - Me
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 20:55:15 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <21183@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
|> Good.  Then you agree exactly with my position on abortion.  Any child
|> with a heartbeat and/or brainwaves may not be killed without due process.
|> That would put the upper limit on legal abortion at 5 to 8 weeks
|> gestational age.

Drawing the line at the presence of heartbeat or brainwaves is just as
arbitrary as drawing it at conception or viability or birth.  It's
just the point that makes the most sense to *you*, that's all.

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
     "Faith:  not *wanting* to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 22:59:17 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <21208@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
|> It isn't slavery simply because the woman (generally speaking) consented
|> to becoming pregnant.

Obviously not, or she wouldn't be seeking to terminate her pregnancy.
 
|> Actually, you support the argument that you shouldn't be responsible for
|> your actions.

Obviously you don't consider abortion to be a "responsible" solution.
I do.

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
     "Faith:  not *wanting* to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Lottery (was Re: Car licensing fees)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 15:10:48 GMT
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <04Lqr*BK0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
|> The lottery is a tax on stupidity and ignorance.  Why do you think that it is
|> moral for the government to cheat those who can least afford it?

The government is not cheating anyone--the odds are clearly stated on
the tickets and at the point of sale.  I think it's more immoral for
the government to interfere with how people spend their own money in
order to "protect" them.  You are demeaning poor people by insinuating
that they are too stupid to manage their money.

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
     "Faith:  not *wanting* to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:56:53 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <7002@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>Quite aside from the question of the woman who has taken the appropriate steps
>and had them fail, it IS slavery: you would have her serve that fetus for nine
>months, regardless of what he choice in the matter would be. What's next? Are
>you going to incarcerate her for nine months so she doesn't use the coathanger
>approach to freedom?

It isn't slavery simply because the woman (generally speaking) consented
to becoming pregnant.  She knew the risks, and she accepted them.  She now
has a legal obligation.  If you buy a car, don't carry insurance, wreck the
car, and still have a mortgage to pay, no one is going to buy this "economic
slavery" or "economic parasitism" argument that you keep pushing.  Slavery
implies a lack of consent.  And I know we will get the "what about rape?"
line next - well, I understand that for the last year the figures were in,
there were a whopping 8 abortions performed for women who became pregnant
as a result of rape.  That's out of 1.7M.

>Actually, this argument falls down by the same reasoning as your argument
>about economic parasitism: _anyone_ can provide support for that child *after*
>*it's* *born*.

It's so nice to know that you believe people should accept responsibility
for their actions.  I mean, _anyone_ can pay for your little genetic droppings,
right?

>Actually, I support the argument that says that if the woman has the right to
>divest herself of the burden of the child, so should the man; I regard the
>current situation as inequitable.

Actually, you support the argument that you shouldn't be responsible for
your actions.  No one asked the child to be born.  You could have just kept
your pants on.  Then there wouldn't be some child suffering because you
refuse to clean up after you make a mess.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | Life's Little Instruction Book:
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            | "#138.  Learn Spanish.  In a few years,
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  more than 35% of all Americans will speak
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |  it as their first language."
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: FLASH! Henry Ross Perot QUITS!
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 15:22:33 GMT

In article <mVDDoB1w164w@k5qwb.lonestar.org> lrk@k5qwb.lonestar.org (Mr. Lyn R. Kennedy) writes:
>Given a choice between a liar and truth-teller, the voters always 
>choose the liar. It's your (all you voters) fault. You vote for what 
>you want to be reality, not what IS reality.

	Does this mean you don't vote? Or, did you mean, all _us_ voters?
Personally, I'd rather blame the emotional state of the voters- apathy-
rather than the voters themselves. That way, we don't have to get rid of
the entire electorate in order to vote in better politicians. We try to
get rid of the apathy instead.
 
>Actually, we can do both. If we quit wasting our resources, we could 
>easilly out-do Germany and Japan.

	I'll toast to that!

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"You know what they say about a honey bear. If you shave off all that baby
hair, you have a hairy-minded pink bare bear."- Lou Reed.
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 25 Jul 92 18:13:31 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <MMEYER.92Jul24103116@m2.dseg.ti.com> mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:
>	My opinion disagrees with the half of that.  I don't think
>heartbeat is relevant.  You don't need a human heart to be a person;
>some people have artificial hearts.  However, for personhood, a brain,
>specifically a cerebrum, being the seat of all our thoughts, is
>indispensable.  I would go with a definition based only on cerebral
>brain activity.  Would the timing of this event be different from the
>5-8 week estimate above?

By 8 weeks the brain has developed to a point that it has a cerebrum.
Actually, this development takes place earlier, but I'm being generous
on this 8 week issue ...

As for "thoughts", I don't know.  Helen Keller said that she had no
memories from before she learned to communicate.  I would suspect that
a child at 8 weeks gestation has no "thoughts" and that neither does
a child 6 months after birth.  Neither are able to communicate and
neither have any concept of abstract objects.

Most children at the 8 week gestation point are content to flop around
all day long, playing with whatever things they can get that hands or
mouth on.  Thumb-sucking and holding their umbilical cord like a security
blanket are common pastimes for 8 week old children.  Children at this
stage soon develop distinct personalities beyond the instinctive grasp
and suck behaviors.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | Vida en La Republica de Tejas:
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  A Tejana woman, after spending the rent
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  money on the Tejas Lottery - "I can't go
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |  home, my husband will beat me up."
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 18:17:34 GMT

In article <21193@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.155514.30120@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>>The word "fetus" had been used for centuries to describe humans prior
>>to birth.  Maybe the use of the word in the vernacular is more common
>>now, but any emotional conclusions that you come to as a result of
>>hearing the word are your own.
>
>Actually, it hasn't.  In the English speaking world, "baby" is and
>was the most common term.  Women (and song writers for that matter)
>did not say "I'm having a fetus."

That's because WHEN THEY HAVE IT IT IS A BABY.  If you don't have it,
it isn't.

>
>>An embryo/fetus is a parasite - it gets into your womb and sets up
>>house.  How it got there is irrelevant to its being a parasitic
>>relationship.
>
>You are a parasite.  You got into your domicile and set up house.
>How you got there is irrelevant.  The trees that were slaughtered
>to build the house don't care for the parasitic relationship you
>have developed ...
>
>"Parasite" means something, and it doesn't mean "unborn child."
>This is NOT Lewis Carrol's "Through the Looking Glass" ...

That's right, it's not.  Going by what you say here, it appears that
YOU are the one who needs to look up 'parasite'.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:21:14 GMT
Organization: Eric's Amiga 2000 @ Home

From article <1992Jul21.205515.13341@watson.ibm.com>, by john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti):
> In article <21183@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> |> Good.  Then you agree exactly with my position on abortion.  Any child
> |> with a heartbeat and/or brainwaves may not be killed without due process.
> |> That would put the upper limit on legal abortion at 5 to 8 weeks
> |> gestational age.
>
> Drawing the line at the presence of heartbeat or brainwaves is just as
> arbitrary as drawing it at conception or viability or birth.  It's
> just the point that makes the most sense to *you*, that's all.

Au contraire. The medical profession as a whole draws the line for the end
of life as being "displays brainwaves compatible with human life." Brain
waves go flat, boom, you're allowed to disconnect the heart pump and
respirator and ship the stiff off to the morge.

What John Haugh is saying is that perhaps we should apply this same
standard to the BEGINNING of life, too.

I must say that it does seem to be a rational, reasoned response to the
entire debate about when that zygote becomes a human being. I'm not sure
whether 5 to 8 weeks is what I would personally prefer as the cutoff, but
if you're trying to define the "crossing point", brain waves and heartbeat
generally is the medically-accepted one.

Note to the pro-choice flamers -- I'm not a Christian fundamentalist nor a
conservative, so please re-direct your torches. My asbestos suit is
currently at the cleaner's from Mr. Haugh's last flames directed in my
direction.

--
 Eric Lee Green  elg@elgamy.sccsi.com         Dodson Elementary
 (713) 437-6908  uunet!nuchat!elgamy!elg      Houston, TX
                "Kids are kids, no matter what"
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 22:24:22 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <21188@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
 
|> No, it's the point which makes the most sense for the majority of
|> Americans.

I have very little confidence in what makes sense to the "majority 
of Americans". 

|> The pro-abortion forces are afraid of the truth - the
|> truth that a 12 week gestational age child has a functioning brain
|> that is capable of feeling pain and reacting to it.

We've discussed this "truth" before.  I'm not sure why you think the
presence of pain is relevent, but the age at which pain is possible is
hotly disputed in the medical community, and probably varies between
individuals.  I read one article in Psychology Today which put the age
at 30 weeks. 

|> This is the
|> whole objectification trip - pretend the kid isn't a living human
|> being.

I think it's a living human being.  I'm still pro-choice. 

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
     "Faith:  not *wanting* to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche
From: skywalker@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 29 Jul 92 13:32:32 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute

I think I'll jump in here.

This thread has drifted into a argument of Pro-life/Pro-Abortion. 
The heart of this issue is not rather you are Pro or Anti abortion,
the issue to be decided here is who is going to make the decision 
George Bush and his Holy Supreme Court or the women who should be
able to decide for themselves under their constitutional rights.

You can be Pro-Choice and not be Pro-Abortion, it's a question of
rights not morality.

Tim