HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: siddarth@cs.utexas.edu (Siddarth Subramanian)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 22 Aug 92 12:32:40 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: deimos.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Aug22.065449.18291@cactus.org> rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.153119.21631@menudo.uh.edu> moore@uhibpd.phys.uh.edu (Lorra L. Moore) writes:
>>There were times when I didn't have anything.  When we worried where
>>we were going to sleep the next week and prayed they would give us just
>>a little more time on the rent. I have lived the very life I don't want to
>>damn these children too.
>
>Yes, but (if true), you lived through it, and are very much alive, quite
>feisty, and more than willing to bet other peoples' lives on your opinions.
>But at the same time, you wish to deny children--yourself, in another time--
>the same opportunity to reach the same point in life.  Or do you truly regret 
>being alive, participating in your pet causes?  Would you rather that YOUR 
>parents had looked at the situation, like you, and aborted you?

I've never quite understood this "what if your parents had aborted
you" argument. How does this work? If my parents had aborted me, I
wouldn't exist and so the question would be moot. It's like "How would
you  feel if you had died in a car accident last year" or "How would
you feel if your parents had decided never to have unprotected sex?" 

I guess we're getting into the metaphysical here, but the question
presupposes the notion that humans exist independent of time - from
before conception through after death. That's something that not all
of us accept. IMHO, one is given a genetic make-up at conception and
then one's mind develops in a social context. The "you" that you ask
this question of would be a meaningless concept if it were not given a
chance to develop beyond the first few weeks.

With apologies for the non-political digression,

-- 

Siddarth Subramanian          INTERNET: siddarth@cs.utexas.edu
Austin, Texas                 UUCP:     uunet!cs.utexas.edu!siddarth
From: rbutera@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert John Butera)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:03:46 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rice University

Here's a good example of how a pollster's question affects people
answers.  The questions below were from a NY Times/CBS poll from 1980
(NY Times, August 8, 1980).  The purpose of this poll was to
demonstrate that a "functionally equivalent" question can get
different results depending upon its wording (emphasis aded by me):

Q1: Do you think there should be an amendment to the Constitution
    PROHIBITING ABORTION, or shouldn't there be such an amendment?

                    Yes: 29%             No: 62% 


Q2: Do you believe there should be an amendment to the Constitution
    PROTECTING THE LIFE OF THE UNBORN CHILD, or shouldn't there be
    such an amendment?

                    Yes: 50%             No: 39%


In my opinion, "prohibiting abortion" and "protecting the life of the
unborn child" are the same thing. The difference, IMHO, is the ideas
or mental images that are evoked by using "abortion" vs. "unborn
child".  I will probably get flamed for this, but I really think that
the average Joe strolling down the street getting asked a survey
question is going to answer "without thinking" i.e. unless that person
has put a lot of thought into the issue in question and has a
viewpoint firmly fixed in their head, there's some element of
randomness that will be applied to their answer.   I think the
questions above show this by appealing to emotions, which seem to be
quicker to respond than rational thinking ...



"A large portion of the general public is ill-informed on any given
issue.  Some of this is due to the media, but it is also due to the
public not putting in the effort to search out the facts."

kind of related to this is an Andy Rooney quote:  "people will only
accept something as fact if it agrees with what they already
believe" (paraphrased from memory)

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

"...this thing of separation of church and state is a figment of some infidel's
 imagination." - Rev. W. A. Criswell
From: jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Anita Hill
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:44:27 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: APRDL, Motorola Inc., Austin Texas

>> |> Skeptical aren't you (when it serves your purpose.)
>> 
>> I'm skeptical about everything.
>> 
>> |> You probably believed Anita Hill.
>> 
>> As a matter of fact I DID believe Anita Hill, but I thought her
>> allegations were quite irrelevant to the Supreme Court confirmation
>> process.

>As I said.  Your skepticism seems to disappear entirely when it might conflict
>with your preestablished liberal ideas.

>
                                                Jim Pritchett

"preestablished conservative ideas" could not change the fact that Mr. Thomas
had the lowest Bar rating for any supreme court justice.  The fact that the 
man was simply not qualified should have been enough to bar his appointment.
Anita Hill simply brought to light the true feelings of the Washington
establishment and has mobilized women like never before.  It has already cost
several senators their jobs and most likely will get more.  I for one applaud 
this movement and think it is well past due. 
James L. Berry  jcj6@giedi.sps.not.com
From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish
Date: 22 Aug 92 04:22:34 GMT
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

> In article <exuptr.367.714350134@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Pat
> >I've always wondered, why do people say  "total" asshole?
> 
> Beats me; I guess that's just the way I'd heard it. One friend uses the term
> "prismatic asshole": an asshole no matter how you look at him.

Maybe..... If it's a "less than total" asshole, the output is less 
than 100% shit? 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - 
                      gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Exculpatory, a nifty little word that meant confuse
           the hell out of the jurors. -- Stephen Coonts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:42:33 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <Bt9q6B.C8@rice.edu> rbutera@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert John Butera) writes:

>Here's a good example of how a pollster's question affects people
>answers.  The questions below were from a NY Times/CBS poll from 1980
>(NY Times, August 8, 1980).  The purpose of this poll was to
>demonstrate that a "functionally equivalent" question can get
>different results depending upon its wording (emphasis aded by me):

>Q1: Do you think there should be an amendment to the Constitution
>    PROHIBITING ABORTION, or shouldn't there be such an amendment?

>                    Yes: 29%             No: 62% 


>Q2: Do you believe there should be an amendment to the Constitution
>    PROTECTING THE LIFE OF THE UNBORN CHILD, or shouldn't there be
>    such an amendment?

>                    Yes: 50%             No: 39%


I suspect that the real problem here isn't the 'emotion' involved, but
that John and Jane Q. Public really don't see the two as the same
thing at all.  I would venture that when they hear the former they
think of things along the lines of first trimester abortion, or at
least abortion prior to 'quickening'.  When they hear the latter, I
suspect what they are thinking of is that an 'unborn child' equates to
'post viable'; in other words, abortions in the third trimester,
primarily. 

The problem isn't one of representing the same thing two ways or with
deliberate emotional shadings; the problem is that the phrase 'unborn
child' doesn't denote an embryo or early-term foetus for a lot of
people, despite attempts at redefinition of terms by 'pro-life' folks. 


-- 
"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: jbrandt@NeoSoft.com (J Brandt)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Clinic Defense
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:26:07 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900


In response to a message from reha@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Reha Elci), 
  
>  ...However, the original article concerned itself with clinic
>  defense which refers to a bunch of operation rescue outlaws
>  breaking the law by blocking the clinic doors.
  
I'd like to correct your statement about "clinic defense."  Clinic
defenders (we wear t-shirts that say 'Houston Defending Choice') are the
ones who stand in a formation around the door to KEEP THE CLINIC DOORS
OPEN and to KEEP OR OUTLAWS FROM BLOCKING THE DOORS.  Very effective
non-violent methods are used to FACILITATE clinic operation.  We annoy
operation rescue very much.  People around here refer to "rescuers" or
"OR" when talking about the abortion-prevention group and to "defenders"
as the pro-choice group whose goal is to keep the clinics open.  
  
The Houston clinics have been kept operational during the past two weeks
through the volunteer efforts of about 2,000 defenders.
-- 
Jaclyn Brandt
jbrandt@NeoSoft.com
--
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4321 alt.politics.clinton:2494
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Privacy
Date: 22 Aug 92 15:16:41 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Aug18.221747.28803@oakhill.sps.mot.com> jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry) writes:
[great stuff deleted]
   
>And now they claiming to be the party of change.  Heaven help us
>if they make any more such changes.  Webster defines a Conserative as
>"1. Opposed to change. 2. Cautious"

	I don't know if this definition surprised anyone else,  but it
sure did me. So, I looked conservative up in my book. Some interesting
stuff, dictionaries. American Heritage's definition: 1.favoring 
preservation of the existing order. 2. Moderate; prudent; cautious etc.
Then their definition for liberal: 1.favoring individual freedom and 
nonrevolutionary reform 2.broad-minded or tolerant 3. generous etc.
The definition of conservative is "moderate"? Sounds like my dictionary
leans to the left. (-: Why doesn't liberal include "throws money at
problems"? 



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"They say 'David, what shall I do? They wait for me in the hallway'.
I say 'Don't ask me- I don't know any hallways."- David Bowie, "Scary Monsters"
From: dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:19:07 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

In article <1684710ACB.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett) writes:
>I actually hoped this argument might flush out a cogent 'pro-life'
>position advocate.  I've never met one who wasn't Catholic or else
>fundamentalist Protestant.  I'd sure like to hear from a 'pro-life'
>atheist, to hear the philosophical position stated without religious
>overtones and frippery.  But, Mr. Taylor, given your post about God
>being on the side of the protestors, I suspect you are one for neither
>intelligent argument nor purely philosophical responses.  Good day.

Not all pro-life advocates or Catholic or fundamentalist Protestant.
I'm certainly *conservative* Protestant, but not fundamentalist.

You might also read _Aborting_America_ by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, M.D.,
a person of a Jewish atheist persuasion who cofounded NARAL,
performed *many* abortions, and has since reconsidered his original
stance considerably.

At the 1990 Rally for Life in Washington, DC, there was at least one
"Atheists for Life" sort of group, although I can't remember their
exact name.  There also was a Feminists for Life.

As a final note, I find it extremely interesting that more men than
women support abortion on demand.

Daryl
-- 
Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    dlb5404@rigel.tamu.edu  or  dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu
        "You're not messy.  You're organizationally impaired."
                _Real_Life_Adventures_, July 3, 1992 
-- 
Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    dlb5404@rigel.tamu.edu  or  dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu
        "You're not messy.  You're organizationally impaired."
                _Real_Life_Adventures_, July 3, 1992 
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 07:49:15 GMT

When discussing polls, the results are virtually useless without the
question.  There is a large difference between "do you think convenience
abortions should be legal?" and "do you think abortions should be legal?".
Even if the pollsters and the news media report it honestly, the
repetitive paraphrasing of the question can distort the meaning of the
results more than any of the participants would have believed.  What
was that child's game?  Telephone?  in which each child whispers a phrase
to the next, and what comes out bears little resemblance to the original?
And someone's bound to take the poll results and re-label the answers
"pro-life" and "pro-choice".  


>: The question "Should abortion be legal under any circumstances?" is
>: quite obvious in its meaning.  It is very different from the question
>: "Should abortion be legal under all circumstances?"  The first question
>: is answered "YES" if any one "circumstance" is a "YES" answer.  It is
>: quite different from the second where the answer is "NO" if there
>: exists any one circumstance under which abortion should be illegal.

I hope nobody is conducting polls asking "should abortion be legal under
all circumstances".  If abortions were made legal "under all circumstances",
I presume one of the qualifying circumstances would be "after election to
Congress".  I presume that also means that abortions can be forced upon
men, women who are not pregnant, woman who do not want an abortion,
fetuses which have been born for a large number of years, and women who
just had one.  When the Supreme Court rules that if you had an abortion,
you have to pay the abortion doctor, women (and men) will have to worry 
about going out at night and running into the abortion gangs giving
abortions at gunpoint, and city government billing you for abortions because
they put Intel, er, RU-486 in the water supply.


					Gordon L. Burditt
					sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: RU 486
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:22:36 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <Bsy519.A2C@rice.edu> kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack) writes:


>   Medically, what does RU 486 do?  Does it induce early labor, 
>   cause the uterine lining and embryo to slough off, or what? 

I thought it was a RISC version of the i486 ;-)

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - D Adams
  - Patrick Taylor
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    alternately, exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 06:01:15 GMT
 <+FIur*AO0@caleb.UUCP> <7101@lib.tmc.edu> <IM1vr*+O0@caleb.UUCP> <1992Aug12.152130.17198@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
 <ekHvr*+P0@caleb.UUCP> <1992Aug17.143952.7735@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug17.143952.7735@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:

> In <ekHvr*+P0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Aug12.152130.17198@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:
> 
> >> Please demonstrate factually exactly how it is that a lump of tissue,
> >> no matter how 'human' it may look, which has no human brainwaves can
> >> qualify as 'human'.  When people achieve that state (no human
> >> brainwaves), we generally adjudge them to be DEAD (insofar as being
> >> live people goes).
> 
> >No, YOU explain how a fetus, which (unless it dies) WILL soon be totally
> >indistinguishable from a human being (because it is one) months, is somehow
> >magically NOT human.  Dead people usually don't get brainwaves later.  Babies
> >do.
> 
> No, babies don't "get brainwaves later".  Babies HAVE them.  No
> brainwaves, no human being in residence.

I wish you guys would quit trying to euphemise babies into "tissue."

> It's only a matter of time until we can grow a complete new you from a
> tissue sample.  Does that make every cell in your body a 'human
> being', or do they only BECOME human beings when we do that procedure
> and they develop into one?

There you go again.  The theoretical possibility of cloning is NOT relevant.


> By your reasoning, an egg IS a chicken.

A fertilized chicken egg has a chicken inside.  A puppy is a dog.  A baby is a
human.  A fetus is a baby.  These are things that everyone knows.  You pro-abortion
people simply want to change the words so that you can rationalize your pro-murder
position.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Re: Trade Imbalance
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 00:27:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa

In article <BtAx7t.KyF@rice.edu> rbutera@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert John Butera) writes:
>In article <53#n-hh.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>
>>-- 
>>Richard Crisp             Cupertino, Ca.           crisp@netcom.com
>>(415) 903-3832 wk  "I don't brake for Liberals"  (408) 253 4541 fax
>>
>>The richest 5% of the population paid 36.4% of the income taxes collected
>>in 1980. By 1990 they were paying 42.9% of the income taxes. Furthermore
>>they had an increase of 17.9% in dollars paid. The total tax base increased
>>while inflation and interest rates decreased under this pro-growth taxation
>>policy. The assertion that the rich got an unfair tax break by shifting the load
>>from them to the poor is simply unsupported by fact. These figures came from
>>the Wall Street Journal 8/5/92
>>
>
>This quote omits one relevant statistic: we see how the richest 5% are
>paying a greater share of the naitions taxes, and that the $$$ that
>they paid increased by 17.9%.  BUT ... what was the income of the
>richest 5% in 1980 vs. 1990.  Without this as a reference, all of the
>above is irrelevant.  Unless that "richest 5%" is not richest 5% of
>the people but those who's income/assets add up to the top 5% ...
>
>

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I will disagree
with your conclusion: I don't understand why it is somehow wrong for
people to work and increase their income. I have only stated that the
assertion that the rich got an undeserved tax break is unsupported by 
fact. 

Are you asserting that it is only OK for the rich to double their
income if everyone else doubles theirs too? Are you suggesting
that we level out the gain by taxing the hell out of the top wage earners?

These folks that seem to feel it is immoral for people to make more money
really confuse me. Haven't they ever heard of the "American Dream"?


-- 
Richard Crisp             Cupertino, Ca.           crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk  "I don't brake for Liberals"  (408) 253 4541 fax

The richest 5% of the population paid 36.4% of the income taxes collected
in 1980. By 1990 they were paying 42.9% of the income taxes. Furthermore
they had an increase of 17.9% in dollars paid. The total tax base increased
while inflation and interest rates decreased under this pro-growth taxation
policy. The assertion that the rich got an unfair tax break by shifting the load
from them to the poor is simply unsupported by fact. These figures came from
the Wall Street Journal 8/5/92

Two things in life are certain: Death and Taxes. With Death it doesn't
get worse if the Democrats are elected.
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 17 Aug 92 14:57:52 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21372@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <00713574111@elgamy.sccsi.com> elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
>>Nice try, John.

>Actually, nice try, Eric.

>>Here's the actual poll results: It was a multiple choice question. "What
>>should the Texas Legislature do on the abortion issue?" was the question.
>>And here were the possible answers:
>>
>>a) Make abortion illegal except to save the mother's life -- 11%
>>b) Make abortion illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or saving
>>    the mother's life  -- 18%
>>c) Enact more restrictions, but still allow adult women the choice
>>   of an abortion -- 14%
>>d) Leave the decision up to the woman -- 53%
>>e) Unsure -- 5%

>Part d) is NOT the same as "make abortion illegal" or "make abortion
>legal".  It is the pollsters trick of turning "undecided" into an
>affirmative answer in favor of abortion.  If the question is "should
>abortion be legal", "leave the decision up to the woman" is NOT the
>same as agreeing to "abortion should be legal."

Oh, nonsense.  The 'undecided' selection is clearly offerred (choice
e).  Please tell us all how someone can say we should "leave the
decision up to the woman" while somehow advocating that the state
should make all choices but not to have an abortion against the law. 

>>Amongst Republicans:
>>a) 12%
>>b) 20%
>>c) 15%
>>d) 50%
>>e) 3%
>>
>>Even amongst Republicans, only 32% wanted to make abortion
>>illegal-with-exceptions.

>No, because the 50% that answered "let the woman decide" did NOT say
>that abortion should be legal or illegal.  Their response is "don't
>care."

Only 3% had the response "don't care".  Apparently you can't read
numbers (either).


-- 
"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: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life vs. Anti-Abortion (Re: fetus vs. baby)
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:25:40 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <Milxr*EQ0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>Some people believe that there is no God.  Others believe that they can define Him
>any way that they choose.  Both groups are very wrong.  When Jesus returns, they
>are going to be very shocked!


>                                                Jim Pritchett

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!  You'll spoil the surprise ;-)

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - D Adams
  - Patrick Taylor
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    alternately, exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org