HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Another Dehumanizer Steps Forward....
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 10:02:15 GMT


I'm beginning to suspect that the pro-life position nearly _requires_
a considerable degree of ignorance.  I don't know of any other reason
they keep posting and claiming such utter nonsense.  Mr. Bruce manages
to reach new heights of ignorance.

mlbruce@husc8.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes ...
[...]
>and/or Biology classes, I'll cut quick to the punch-line: I, as I would assume
>a pretty fair majority of people do, believe that life begins at conception.

Wrong.  Best guess: life began 3.5 billion years ago (3.5 thousand million
for the Brits).

> Various ograns take more time than others to develop, but I
>believe I heard once that brain waves and/or similar signs of life appear
>within hours of conception. In any case, of all the plausible arguments in

Or something like that anyway, right?  :-)

After a few hours, the embryo consists of nothing more than a couple
(nearly identical) cells.  No heart, no brain, no nervous system, no 
digestive system, no limbs, head, eyes, ears, mouth, chest, genitals, 
liver, stomach, kidneys, or anything else that people generally expect
a person to have.  Not exactly enough material for brain waves or a
heartbeat.

>favor of allowing abortion, it's disappointing to see someone resort to an
>implausible one, that of denying the salient differences between a fertilized
>egg and a seperate egg and sperm.

Of course there are differences.  There are differences between an egg and
a zygote, a zygtoe and an embryo, an embryo and a fetus, a fetus and a 
newborn, and a newborn and an adult.

What makes conception the big doo-dah?

> True, not all sperm fertilize, not all eggs are
>fertilized, but that is beyond our control.

I guess the kid has never heard of masturbation, sex, or contraception.

Boy is he in for a _big_ surprise!

(and some say there's too much sex ed in the schools)

> What is NOT beyond our control is
>what happens when we perform surgery on a pregnant woman to snuff out the
>life inside of her.

And wrap it all up with some standard pro-life emotional rhetoric.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49168 ca.politics:8374 ba.politics:5804
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: No on 9
Date: 2 Oct 1992 22:40:33 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Oct2.212215.12961@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>Well, would you rather get beaten with bruises, or lose all your
>property (house, car, money, clothes) with no chance of insurance or
>recompense?
>
>Sometimes physical violence is less awful than property loss.
>

That is interesting philosophy- it appears that in the materialistic world
of today that we have put the value of property ahead of people.  And we 
certainly see this day after day by the way people live and corporate act.

If someone is assaulting me because they want my property, I will say take it
and enjoy it.  It just isn't worth it.  Property is replaceble, expendible, etc.

But that is definitely a viewpoint that many people hold.  I suppose it arises
from insecurity and the need of feeling selfworth based upon the collection of
material things.
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot Again?
Date: 25 Sep 92 16:39:42 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <1686D7CE8.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>, MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
> In article <Bv3qJx.L95@apollo.hp.com>
> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>  
>>In article <1686CB730.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>>> Raise taxes?  Absolutely.
>>
>> Absolutely wrong.
>>
>> I didn't create this deficit.  I didn't enjoy any benefits from
>> it (to the contrary, it is one reason we're in the current
>> economic mess).

   Oh.  Poor baby.  That's the same NIMBY talk which HAS created the deficit. 
No one in the government has wanted to take responsibility for their actions,
much less their work.

>>>The problem is that no one wants to do any of these things if it hurts
>>>them.  The only way to get anyone to accept pain is if they perceive it
>>>as evenly distributed.
>>
>> Oh yeah, REAL evenly distributed:  soak the "rich".   Put in a flat
>> tax, then we can talk.

   Peter, maybe that is the solution.

>>
>>---peter
>  
> Peter, you keep proving my point.  You may think you have valid reasons
> from being exempt from the pain of balancing the budget.  You may even
> be correct.  The point is that *everyone* thinks they have a reason to
> be exempt.  As long as we all feel that way, nothing will get done.  The
> debt will get bigger, and the eventual pain will be worse.
>  
> I don't have anything against you personally.  You are just a perfect
> example of why we are in this mess, and why it is political suicide for
> any politician to try to do anything about it, or even talk about the
> problem.
>  
> Jim McMaster

  Thanks, Jim.  Just remember that attitude when you vote, too.  OK??

  Mike Falkner
  falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: Bush's China policy--what the hell is going on?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:19:50 GMT

In article <visser.718253822@convex.convex.com> visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>	As bad as china is, they are not practicing apartied, systimatically
>rounding up ethnic groups and killing them (Bosnia) 

You mean Serbia.  Don't you?

>or trying to take over other countries (Iraq).

And as for your last two, I'm sure the people of Tibet will be happy to
hear the news.
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton
From: dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:40:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.163551.21838@gtephx.UUCP>, forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep28.133908.1374@Warren.MENTORG.COM>, tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
|> > In article <4eld68a00YV704lVt2@andrew.cmu.edu> Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|> > >Recently posted by Rini Clarkberg:
|> > >> I stand up for life too.   That's why when I look at the picture 
|> > >> on page 310 of The New Our Bodies, Ourselves and see the picture with 
|> > >> the caption:  "Woman dead on motel room floor.  Her death was due to
|> > >> an air embolism suffered during an illegal abortion," I want to cry.
|> > >
|> > >This is sort of like a murder - suicide.  The woman had no right to take
|> > >away her baby's life and died while trying.
|> > 
|> > Remember folks, it's always important to BLAME THE VICTIM!
|> > 
|> > It wouldn't be Usenet without splashes of BTV all over.
|> > 
|> > Tom
|> > P.S.  I'm being sarcastic.  I had the same reaction to page 310.
|> 
|> 
|> Simple questions to shut up a right to lifer
|> 
|> "How many hungry kids have you fed today?"
|> 
|> Welfare doesn't count.
|> Charitable donations don't count.
|> Volunteering your time doesn't count.
|> 
|> How many homeless kids have you taken into your home?
|> (I can ask this with impunity -- I've had two in my home this year.)

What about last year, and the year before?   For how long 1, maybe 2 minutes?

|> 
|> [The answer is invariably zero.]

Oh, I see, you're obviously a right wing radical - you are stating a figure
and not giving your sources.

|> 
|> After you've clothed, fed, and educated all the unwanted children
|> who are already born, maybe I'll listen to your arguments for forcing 
|> more of them to be born.  Meanwhile, try helping those who are here 
|> before crying about those who never make it here.
|> 
|> -- 
|> "25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
|> no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
|> committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
|> gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy)
Subject: Perot
Organization: Clarkson University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:58:41 GMT

I have criticized Perot because I believe his is acting as much
like a politician as Bush or Clinton. When I've stated something like
that someone has responded that Bush and Clinton have the same qualities.

That's the problem. Perot has been trying to make himself be above
the petty politics of Bush and Clinton. He hasn't been. Most people have
responded to my criticisms of Perot with "So do Bush and Clinton" Well,
if Perot is the same in the honesty department, and perhaps ahead
in the economic dept, he's way behind in the foreign policy dept
and the social affairs dept. 

As important as the economy is, the Prez is not the Chief Economist
for the nation. He has to deal with stuff like abortion, family
leave, other countries...

Being prez is not like running a business, there is this thing
called Congress that has to pass bills before a prez can sign them
I saw a cartoon with Prez Perot sitting behind a desk. his advisor is
showing him a graph of the states and how well their economies are doing.
The caption has Perot saying, "Well, I guess we'll hafta fire Arkansas,
Alabama, Alaska,..." Congress is not a rubber stamp for decisions like
Perot's board of directors may have been. If Perot owned 51% of the stock,
he could CHOOSE to listen to his board or he could choose to ignore them.
Prez Perot can't CHOOSE to ignore Congress.

Perot has to prove himself superior in the honest department to 
make up for his serious deficiencies in other areas. He hasn't done
that for me.
---
Bri Farenell				"It is better to have clean hearts and
Clarkson '95				 dirty hands than dirty hearts and
farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu	 clean hands."  ---Rev Jesse Jackson

CLINTON/GORE AND BOB ABRAMS (US SENATE) IN '92
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING MEMBER OF THE ACLU

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: MEXICO OPPOSES to 'Cuban "Democracy" Act'
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:27:11 GMT

[Via misc.activism.progressive from PeaceNet's cuba.activismo]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[Inquiries by email, please, to harelb@math.cornell.edu, for more
information about PeaceNet/EcoNet or about misc.activism.progressive]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Topic 19        Mexican opposition to Cuba Bill 
devenson        cuba.activismo   5:37 pm  Oct  4, 1992 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

     IN A JOINT STATEMENT, MEXICO'S SIX POLITICAL PARTIES 
represented in Congress unanimously condemned the Torricelli 
Bill.  The joint statement emphasized the principles of 
self-determination and non-interference in the affairs of other 
countries.  The motion said the Torricelli Bill "is a step away 
from international law" and "affects third countries," among them 
Mexico by requiring U.S. subsidies abroad to comply with the 
embargo.   
  
    Even the conservative National Action Party (PAN) - Mexico's 
largest opposition party - supported the proposal.  PAN 
congressional deputy Jorge Zermeno Infante said the party "is not 
and never will be in agreement with the unilateral and arrogant 
policies of the United States." He called on the Mexican 
government to stand up for self-determination and national 
sovereignty.   
  
    According to an article in Thursday's (Oct. 1) edition of the 
Mexico City daily La Jornada, the left-leaning Party of the 
Democratic Revolution (PRD), the Popular Socialist Party (PPS) 
and the liberal Authentic Party of the Mexican Revolution (PARM) 
proposed stronger alternative language.  These parties wanted to 
include a motion calling on the U.S Congress and George Bush to 
"respect the principles of international law."   

	["Internatioanl Law"?? What leftist extremists!! --HB]

    But the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party opposed such 
a formulation and to achieve unanimity, the controversial section 
was removed.  The PRI, PAN, PPS, PRD, PARM, and the center-left 
Cardenist Front of National Reconstruction Party are represented 
in the Permanent Commission of Congress, which passed the motion.  
  
Taken from Notimex, the Mexican news service
From: acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:34:17 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <1992Sep29.173521.27759@ncsu.edu> mhmulli@eos.ncsu.edu (MARTIN HARPER MULLIS) writes:
>
> Our friend here just discredited every member in the national guard.
> I guess since the national guard served in every war since its creation 
> it does not deserve to be considered military.
>  One wont find the guard any different than the army.
> When the guard came home from Saudi the veterans that fought in Nam 
> (who were with the guard) marched alongside.
> 
> When a persons draft number came up they had the option to 
> join the service of their choice. Some went to the navy, some the guard,
> and others the army. once you joined you had no idea if you were 
> going to war or not because some units did and some units did not.
> Any man that joins the military knows he may be called to battle and may die.
> for that reason he has served his country regardless of where he was stationed.
> Quayle served his country,  Clinton abandoned it.

Geez, it's amazing how many people fall for that line.

During the Vietnam war, the National Guard was a way to get out of
going to Vietnam. Yes, I know, units could have been, and were, called
up to active duty, but the odds of the happening were about the same
as the odds of Bo Gritz winning the election.
-- 
Proud to be part of the cultural elite!
What the gamemasters wilt shall be the whole of the law.
	- Motto of the Hellfire Club, live-action roleplaying GM's
Arthur C. Adams (not the comic-book artist)                        <fnord>
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48174 alt.politics.clinton:7448
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Keeping Up with the times...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:36:41 GMT

varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:

] In <1992Sep30.140424.2749@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:
] 
] >Yes, I would agree that most people who engage in sexual activity know
] >this, and if they're interested in avoiding conception, they use birth
] >control.  They are still risking pregnancy.  HOWEVER, if that contraception
] >fails, THERE IS A RELATIVELY SAFE, LEGAL (for the moment) ALTERNATIVE.
] 
] 	Abortion is certainly not safe for the unborn child involved.
 
Bruce,

I know we all have busy schedules and all,
but the new term is 'UnBornGrandParent' as
that has a far better feel when pitching
this issue to the Social Security generation.

'child' and 'children' just do not have the
legislative muscle in the USA, and so its
better, tactically, to restructure the language
so that it is more marketable.

Now Politicians will be able to do something
for both the UnBorn and GrandParents all
in one clean breast of it....


ciao
drieux




-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Canadian vs US health care (was "ACM downgrades Catastrophe Medical Insurance")
Originator: clamen@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:56:22 GMT


A few weeks ago, we were told the following horrific tale:

In article <jwtnrdm.lmb@netcom.com> lmb@netcom.com (Larry Blair) writes:

   If you want to live with inferior care supported with your taxes,
   move to Canada.  The last thing I need is no alternative to
   `California Care'.  Canadian care is not inferior, I hear you say?
   Bullshit.  I'll give you a very typical example: my sister (who
   lives in Montreal) developed a neurological condition.  Diagnosis
   required an MRI.  There is *1* MRI machine in Montreal and it was
   booked for the next 6 months.  She ended up having to go to New
   York, at her expense, for the test.  After this, and many other,
   problems with the Canadian health care system my sister and her
   family have opted out of the government system and bought private
   health insurance.  Not that they still don't have to pay taxes that
   you would find appauling.


I had the opportunity to speak with an old friend of mine while we
were both home in Montreal earlier this week.  He's a neuro-surgery
resident in T.O., on rotation at Sick Kids this season...

He can name two MRI machines in Montreal.  He thinks it likely that
there is at least one more in the province.

The "waiting list" for MRIs in Toronto IS 6 months.  However, even in
non-emergency situations, he can get someone in within a week.  He can
get emergency ones anytime during the day, but not at night (since the
hospitals do not have their MRI machines charged up at night...).

He says that the Buffalo MRI site advertises heavily in Toronto, and
gets patients.  However, he has had to order new MRIs for many people,
owing to the poor quality of the results delivered from Buffalo.
(Often they image the wrong thing, or are otherwise deficient.)  There
are also a lot of irrelevent MRIs taken.


--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Sit down and shut up PEROT!!!!
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:30:13 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <CB.92Sep30103402@tamarack13.timbuk> cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
>KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>
>     Originally, I thought it was a great idea for a third candidate, I
>   even signed a petition in Maryland, because Clinton and Bush are not 
>   exactly the greatest candidates. ...
>
>Although I'm hearing this sentiment less than I did a few months ago, I
>never could figure why people were so negative about Clinton.  Is it
>only because he had an affair?  Or what?

  Answer: the latter, i.e., "what".    I don't care whether a 
  politician goes to bed with bimbos or who he screws; I *do*
  care what special interest groups, industries, and ideologies
  he's in bed with or whether the taxpayers get screwed.

  Clinton's plans are basically a rehash of all the standard 
  Democratic party concepts of higher taxes, more government 
  regulation, and more government involvement in the economy
  in the form of managed trade and industrial policy. 

  This has not worked in the past, and in Europe where these
  ideas are writ large, it has been an economic catastrophe
  with higher taxes than here and much higher unemployment
  rates.                                              

  And while I don't agree with conservatives here that government
  welfare programs have *caused* problems like a 60% unwed 
  motherhood rate in the black community, 42% of the young 
  male population of Washington DC being in the criminal justice
  system and a national prison population of 800,000+, and an
  astronomical drug problem, it *is* true that these problems
  all emerged during a period of unprecedented expansion in
  US welfare programs.   So clearly these programs don't
  correct or fix such problems.  

  Finally, Clinton had a chance to show what he can do in an
  executive capacity in Arkansas and I'm distinctly underwhelmed.

  We are facing VERY perilous economic times, worse, I think 
  than most people realize, and NONE of the presidential
  candidates, declared or otherwise has the ideas, character,
  guts or leadership skills required.   I'me very pessimistic.


---peter




Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48833 can.politics:7663 sci.econ:7894
From: alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,can.politics,sci.econ
Subject: Banks and the October referendum: fear and drooling
Date: 1 Oct 92 02:47:30 GMT

In <1992Sep28.125528.5874@sq.sq.com>
donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed)
wonders about the Canadian scene:

> Two major banks have come out with heavy public announcements
> that we had better all vote yes or we will be shooting ourselves
> in terms of the financial state of the nation.

	... and the prime rate just went up TWO WHOLE PERCENTAGE POINTS.
	That's due to the fall of the C$ which is due to the bankers
	and the politicians crying BOUH in the mirror.  Money traders
	are a jumpy bunch, so they jumped.  Self fulfilled prophecy.
	Now the good people are really scared.  Voting YES doesn't seem
	like such a terrible idea after all...  ugly.

 > [ ... ]
> The bankers themselves will cause more fluctuation in the
> markets than the politicial outcome of the referendum itself,
> as their speculation will have an instant truthhood in terms of the
> effect.  The bank announcements will do more damage than the real
> uncertainties that existed prior to this point.  I am judging this
> by the fact that in the case of Meech it was only the Prime Minister
> and Wilson who forecasted doom.  This time it is the people who
> handle your money.  Wonder what is in it for them?  Can they predictably
> gain from the types of fluctuations that would be expected as the 26th
> approaches and polls are taken?

	When you know where the market is about to go, you bet
	on it.  Then you make sure that it goes where you want
	it to go.  Bankers and traders become rich on this game,
	but moderately as it is hard to influence a healthy
	market in drastic and predictable ways.  The option and
	the futures markets are based on this weak ability to
	predict and they are moderated by the inertia of the
	economy (market depth, market liquidity and equal
	playing field).  But that's in normal times.

	But when the economy is in the shit house (thanks to our
	incompetent and greedy leaders) and the demagogues create
	uncertainty and even fear, the mood swings of the market
	become both very predictable and very extreme.  The bankers
	love Mulroney today.  He just made them oodles of money.
	Those bankers who did not make money in this are terminally
	stupid.

	The script was played out to perfection.  The real trick now
	is to know how the secondary reactions will fall.  The primary
	reactions were orchestrated by the political scene but, after
	this, it is unpredictable and dangerous.  Chaos sets in.  Let's
	see what kind of poisoned brew our sorcerer apprentices have
	concocted.



--
 The Vacuum Cleaner Man (reality sucks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast