HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Grand Facade: Are (legal) abotions safe?
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:41:21 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

warren@pws.ma30.bull.com (Warren Lavallee) writes:


>bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:

>[from interview in July 1987]  He estimates that as many as fifteen
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>percent of all first trimester, forty percent of all mid-trimester,
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
>any ninety percent of all late-trimester abortions result in problems
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>demanding serious medical attention.  [Based on California 
>Obstetrical/Gynecilogical tabulated responses to a five year statistical
>survey.] 

>A number of studies conducted by some of the finest medical 
>research institutions all around the globe confirm Dean's
>conclusion that "there is no such thing as a safe and legal
>abortion.":

Does Dean actually conclude that there is no such thing as
a safe and legal abortion?  Are those his words or yours?  Are those
his statistics above?  Because those numbers do not support
that conclusion.  According to those numbers, which as you
said, are estimates, 85% of all first trimester, 60% of
all mid-trimester, and 10% of late-trimester abortions do
*not* result in problems demanding serious medical attention.

Those numbers do not support the claim  that there is "no such thing" as 
a safe and legal abortion.  What they do say is that 48%
of ALL abortions result in problems demanding serious medical 
attention and 51% do not, and the odds of having a safe abortion 
are significantly better earlier in the pregnancy than later.

Therefore, it highly dangerous to have a late-trimester abortion
(which everyone already knows) and much much safer to have an
abortion in the first trimester (which everyone also knows).

So there is such a thing as a safe abortion.  And it is well 
within a woman's control to make sure that the one she has is
a safe one by getting it as soon as possible.

[list of references which support earlier claim deleted]

>In every case abortion was found to dangerously risk maternal mortality,
>perinatal fitness, congenital malformation, and future fertility.
>	[See WHO Task Force; and Hilgers, Horan, and Mall, pp. 92-163]

In every case, meaning in every abortion studied? Therefore,
100% of all abortions studied put the woman at dangerous risk? If that is so,
then that research does not support Dean's findings because Dean
found that only 48% of all abortions performed put a woman at serious
risk.

>I ask you again, is it worth the risk?

In the 3rd trimester, no.  In the second, doubtful.  In the first?
Could be an option, if my doctor didn't forsee any problem.  However
its still my choice to make.

I don't think you should be playing the statistics game.


-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
From: dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:59:27 GMT
Organization: I don't speak for them anyway.

In article <1992Sep28.180255.10884@mcs.anl.gov> shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
:>AIDS is not God's way of punishing the homosexuals for their lifestyle.
:>
:>It's God's way of punishing the homosexuals for electing people like
:>Willie Brown (San Francisco) and John Cullerton (Chicago) to office.
:
:AIDS is not a punishment from God at all. It is a natural consequence
:of ignoring the users manual. Sort of like jumping of a cliff. No punishment
:but a lot of consequences.

It's really sad the the manual is not available to all.  Or for
that fact, understood by all -- or even enough.  It would be nice
if there was a owners manual for life, but alas there is not.

Now someone amuse us all and say that some religious book fills
that need.

:                               mike

:BTW there are in this case consequences for the entire society.

You are right.  We are all dimished by this plauge.  Too bad many
waste energy pointing fingers instead of helping.




     Donn Pedro ....................................dfpedro@uswnvg.com

		     There are no ordinary moments.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Two views of the United Nations
From: berg@malice.cass.usu.edu (Glenn Berg)
Date: 29 Sep 92 09:18:48
Distribution: world
Organization: The Center for Atmospheric and Space Science, Logan, UT

FIRST VIEW, George Bush, President of the USA:

"Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective--a new world order--can
emerge...  We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned
by its founders (see NOTE*)."
			(George Bush, Televised Address, Sept. 11, 1990)

"I think what's at stake here is the new world order.  What's at stake here is
whether we can have disputes peacefully resolved in the future by a
reinvigorated United Nations.  Or will the United Nations, its peacekeeping
function having been elevated to its most promising height since 1948, be sent
back to Dark Ages because we failed to fulfill its mandate?"
			(US News & World Report, January 7, 1991)

"When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new
world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its
peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN's founders."
			(Televised Address, January 16, 1991)

"(The Gulf Crisis) has to do with a new world order.  And that world order is
only going to be enhanced if this newly activated peacekeeping function of the
United Nations proves to be effective.  This is the only way the new world
order will be enhanced."
			(Press Conference, January 9, 1991)

*NOTE:  The United Nations' "founders" included a US delegation (containing 16
secret communists) which was led by Alger Hiss.


SECOND VIEW, Ezra Taft Benson, Former Secretary of Agriculture

"Whereas the United States is founded on the concept of limited government, the
U.N. concept is one of UNLIMITED government power with virtually no meaningful
restraints to protect individual liberty...the U.N. Charter authorize(s) doing
absolutely anything."

"It has always been a source of amazement to me how so many Americans...
continue to give their unqualified support to the U.N., which incorporates
every doctrine which they abhor."

"Every conceivable sphere of human activity is being analyzed and then planned
for so that will come under the ultimate control of the United Nations."

"The U.N. ...is the product of historical forces which were planned many years
ago."
			(Ezra Taft Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This,
			 pp. 203-205, 208)
--
Glenn A. Berg (berg@logan.cass.usu.edu)
Center for Atmospheric and Space Sciences, Utah State University

"We've got one more hill to take... Capitol Hill!" - Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:31:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.092628.1598@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>>farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>>>Secondly, if they weren't opposed to term limits,
>>>why did they vote unanimously not to include them in the Constit.?
>>
>>I'll lay odds that the founding fathers were opposed to child molestation.
>>But, for some strange reason, there is no prohibition in the Constitution
>>on such or similar practices. It follows, according to Farenellian logic,
>>that laws against child molestation are pattently unconstitutional on their
>>face.
>
>Term limits were proposed for the Constitution, and voted down unanimously.
>Do you have any evidence that the Framers considered placing a child
>molestation clause in the Constitution?  If not, then your posting makes
>no sense.  There's a huge difference between something not being in the
>Constitution because the Framers actively decided not to put it there,
>and something not being there because there was never any consideration
>of putting it there.

As pointed out, ad nauseum, they might have rejected the inclusion of such
a limitation for any number of reasons including that they considered them
unnecessary or that they wished to leave the matter to the states (where
it is currently being resolved) or, more likely, they just didn't consider it
appropriate or a good idea. To infer they they considered it somehow contrary
to other provisions in the Constitution is an incredible leap of logic.

To continue the analogy, if someone had proposed a prohibition on child
molestation and it was voted down, unanimously because everyone considered it
to be a state, and not a national issue (as it is), then this would have
make such laws unconstitutional?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 04:45:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.024902.23519@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <Bv9LIx.qt@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> 
>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>
>>	Well, for your information, (and I know this might shock you)
>>I am NOT the only person in the world who stands up for the right to
>>live. 
>
>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.
>

	Stupid lady.


From: reykja@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Reykja Sigurdsson)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 07:09:44 GMT
Subject: Re: Why not Gritz? (Was: why perot?)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc

>   According to a newspaper report reprinted here in t.p.m. Gritz gave
>   the NAZI salute to Weaver's supporters.  He belongs to an organization
>   that wants to ban foreign workers and ownership of companies in
>   the US.  They want to "discourage" (their words - I have no idea what
>   they mean) nonChristian religions in the US.   Gritz basically makes
>   David Duke look like Mister Rogers.    Don't vote for this clown if
>   you care about any of the ideals that built this country.
> 
> 
> ---peter
> 

        That is absolutely right! Bo Gritz has a history of association
with various racist organizations. In fact, he has made appearances at
the LaPorte Church of Christ in Colorado where Identity preacher, Pete
Peters, is notoriously racist. 

        There is also some evidence that this same church is where 
David Lane and Bruce Pierce hung out the night before killing Alan
Berg. It is well-known that other members of The Order attended there
regularly. 

        Bo Gritz is one scary dude! When he talks about nonChristian
religions, he is not just talking about paganism, Judaism or Islam! He
is talking about Protestants, Catholics and Methodists as well. One of 
the basic tenets of Identity is that they (read:white people) are the
lost tribes of Israel and the true holders of the Covenant of Abraham!
All other so-called Christians are not 'true' Christians in their 
belief. 

        War hero? Even if Gritz didn't have such creepy connections, 
the last thing this country needs is a 'war hero'! What we need is
a person of compassion.     

        If anyone is interested in more information on the associations
of Bo Gritz, Jack Mohr or any of these figures, please contact me
at 3107 W. Colorado Ave #172, Colorado Springs, CO 80904. (I am a 
hate group investigator with the Religious Movement Resource Center and 
have a great deal of documentation on these folks.) 

       The address and e-mail are as follows:

                       Religious Movement Resource Center
                       3107 W. Colorado Ave #172
                       Colorado Springs, CO 80904

                       E-mail : rks@cscns.com


     (Don't get freaked out by the name of the organization. It is not
a fundamentalist organization. The name was chosen when the only 
investigations going on were dangerous and destructive religious cults.)

> 
>
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cable Regulation [Was BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!!]
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:10:33 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Distribution: na
Organization: The Bates Motel

mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>If he wanted the cable industry de-regulated, take away their
>monopoly and let them compete on the open market.  But you can't 
>have it both ways, goverment protection and a free rein.

From what I've seen down here in the U.S., there is a conflict in 
laws at the federal and local level ... while the cable industry was
unregulated federally, local governments still had the power to grant
monopoly franchises.  By regulating again at the federal level where
there is no competition, cable operators and local governments may be
forced to surrender their monopoly franchise sweetheart deals ...

One counterexample to Bush's assertions, albeit that it's Canadian ...
while we have local monopolies up north, prices have not prevented any
further development of R&D.  In fact, outfits like Videotron of Montreal
use the city's cable system as a testbed for its technologies which it
sells and makes real money ... the last year or two, some bars and homes
had the option of multiple screen coverage for sporting events like ice
hockey with the Montreal Canadiens team.  Rogers Cable in Ontario and
British Columbia is involved in program development and videotext ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		Oct 26/92: Just say "OUI!"
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			(Let's worry about the economy!)
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:19:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <GOLDM.92Oct5125456@sage4a.rpi.edu> goldm@rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold) writes:

>Maybe we should start mentioning the LP not just to the media, but also to
>the pollsters. Gallup might take more interest, having more of a reputation
>for good polls, though I doubt any Republican/Democrat Party sponsored polls
>would care, except to "normalize" the poll and add it to the "error."

   The flaw in this has already been explained:  The typical margin of
   error in a major poll is 3-5%, which is way over the % of the voters
   who have voted for the L.P. in any presidential campaign, so there's
   simply no rational reason for any polling company to include them.


---peter
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Pointer to article on constitionality of term limits
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 20:47:23 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

The April 1992 issue of the "Washington Law Review" contains a Comment
entitled "Congressional Term Limits: Unconstitutional By Initiative"
that provides interesting arguments that term limits on Congress
can only be enacted by an amendment to the United States Constitution.

Those interested in term limits might find it interesting.

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49382 talk.philosophy.misc:1870
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:32:26 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Simon E. Booth) writes:
|> 
|> Why isn't a fetus considered a living entity??
|> 
|> I could understand if there were extreme circumstances, but what about
|> abortions carried out simply because the parents think a child might
|> be an inconvenience.  I could understand if perhaps it was known that a
|> child would be born with major medical problems and not live very long if
|> born. But each case must be looked at individually.
|> 
Each case being looked at individually is called CHOICE.

If you want anyone other than the potential parents to determine which
children should be carried to birth, then someone has to play god.  If there
is a god, his record at naturally aborting those that have no chance at
a reasonable life isn't very good.  Can you come up with a system that
will do better?

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49588 ca.politics:8459 ba.politics:5885
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: If you want to know if Ross is Running -- Ask US.
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:38:32 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1a9tusINNgar@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes:

> At least our guy may be telling the truth,

The operative word here, of course, is "may".

> and is more than willing to admit a mistake when he makes one.

Oh?  When was that?
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The draft and Vietnam
Date: 4 Oct 92 03:35:44 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords: 

In article <brian.718088313@coombs> brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:
]	I find you attitude John to the Vietnam extremely interesting.  Only
]in America is this seemingly belief in the "rightness" of the decision to
]go to war in Vietnam.  Despite your defeat at the hands of the Vietnamese
]people, the evidence of the lying that your leaders used, the masssive
]destruction visited upon the Vietnamese and the shenagins which your government
]got up to in that country, you still beleive in the basic "rightness" of
]waging war in Vietnam.
]	No where else in the world, even in the countries which were involved
]the closest in that war has this attitude continued.  I wonder why?  Could it
]be just as Germany under Hitler between the wars was unable to accept its
]defeat in 1918 as being anything else but a betrayal, could it be that the
]American right cannot concieve that the Vietnam war could well have been
]what it is viewed everywhere else in the world: a gigantic mistake?

I suppose, Brian, that it was inevitable that ultimately you would
post something completely devoid of facts, but still putting forth
your opinion - in the face of a lot of evidence and detailed discussion
of the situation that I put forward.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - If a field of study has the word "science" in it - it isn't a science - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49121 alt.politics.elections:14935
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: RUN Ross RUN
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:59:40 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1agrh3INN1m2@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>>waiting for stratocaster....
>
>(I'm blushing.)
>
>Hi Suze.  Nice of you to remember me.  Actually I'm voting
>Libertarian this year. ;-)
>
>Stratocaster

How can we forget! :-)



--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: <None>
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 1 Oct 92 11:21:07 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <9209301600.AA01150@tba.msi.cornell.edu>, harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
> The Decline of America: USA #1 in NOT Ratifying Human Rights Treaties

	Good for US!

	The US has a history of not signing treaties.  Mostly because they are
vague, and have the US ending up responsible (conceivably) for a huge % of the
costs.

	Anyone whose ever signed a "standard" contract, only to be burned by
fine print, knows the value of not signing useless documents.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: VOTE GRITZ: A New World Order
From: berg@malice.cass.usu.edu (Glenn Berg)
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:58:45
Distribution: world
Organization: The Center for Atmospheric and Space Science, Logan, UT

			  THE MANIPULATION OF AMERICA
				       
				  written by
				 ANITA MORROW
				   Candidate
			     United States Senate
			     Populist Party - Utah

Part V - A NEW WORLD ORDER

The idea of a modern, up-to-date Constitution is not new.  In fact, one has
already been written.  It was published in 1970 by the Center for "The Study of
Democratic Institutions" (A nice sounding name, and paid for by the Ford
Foundation!)  The following are some changes:
  
  1.  Conversions of the Senate from an elected body to one entirely appointed 
  by the President.
  
  2.  Transfer of states' powers to the Federal Government.
  
  3.  Nationalization of the communications industry.
  
  4.  Conditional removal of the right to trial by jury.
  
  5.  Voters would be unable to cast ballots for individual candidates,
  restricted instead to choosing a party slate.  This eliminates candidates.
  
  6.  Congress expanded.  Party whose nominee became President would
  designate one-sixth of all representatives in the House and one-third of
  all Senators.  (This would diminish the elective power of the voters and
  the balance to executive and legislative spheres.)
  
  7.  The requirement for Senate ratification of treaties would be lowered.

These measures would reduce the say of the American voters and play havoc with
our system of checks and balances, increasing the potential of an eventual
dictatorship type of government.  A new Constitutional Convention is being
called for, the last one was in 1787.  Thirty-four states have to agree; and,
as of 1988, thirty-two had done so.  These thirty-two gave their approval
because it was publicized as a way to balance the budget.  Few states are aware
of the radical agenda for constitutional changes the CFR wants to slip in.
Many of those wanting the change, such as MacGregor Burns (Reforming American
Government), feel the only way to do so is at a time when there is a national
crisis.  Burns thinks a stupendous national crisis and political failure might
do it! (A carefully orchestrated, preplanned, well thought through crisis.)

--
Glenn A. Berg (berg@logan.cass.usu.edu)
Center for Atmospheric and Space Sciences, Utah State University

"We've got one more hill to take... Capitol Hill!" - Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49236 alt.activism:17086 soc.culture.latin-america:3717