HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:42:34 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <Ee2vr*3P0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> > Such as . . .?
> 
> 1.  The VP has to pass a litmus test on abortion.  He MUST support abortions in
>     all cases.  That is why Gore was chosen instead of Hamilton (Willie's first
>     choice.)  Hamilton said publicly that the Pennsylvania law was reasonable.
>     So, he was out.
 
How is that any different than the Repubs?  Any Republican VP essentially
has to be pro-life.
 
> 
> 2.  He wants to raise taxes on the "rich" (actually the middle class.)
> 
 
What is your evidence for that?
 
 
> 3.  He favors DC statehood.  (i.e. 2 more liberal Senators.)
 
Whether or not the people of DC deserve to have representation in Congress
should be decided apart from the political tendencies of those citizens.
Don't you think it's a little sleazy to figure out how a group is going
to vote, and then decide whether or not you want to franchise them with
basic rights that all Americans should have?
 
> 6.  He says he is going to "build infrastructure."  Translation:  tax more and
>     spend much more than is taxed.
> 
 
Again, how is that any different from Bush?  Don't you feel a little
silly complaining about how Clinton might spend when Bush has increased
domestic spending faster than any president since Johnson.
 
> 7.  He wants to rape the national defense in order to pay for more social programs.
> 
 
In case you haven't noticed, the world has changed.  Do you really think
we need to continue our massive welfare-for-defense contractor program,
given that our primary enemy has fallen apart.
 
> 8.  He thinks the solution to the LA riots is to buy off the rioters with more
>     of our tax dollars.
 
President Bush proposed the same thing!  
 
 
> 12.  He was against Desert Storm (at least until the public overwhelmingly
>      supported it.)
> 
 
So was Buchannan.  Does that make Buchannan a bleeding liberal?  Better
be careful on this on by the way.  It's becoming more and more clear
that we didn't accomplish much.  Iraq is building up again and has 
just recently stated that they still own Kuwait and it's just a matter of
time before they re-take it.  How many times are we going to go around
the world to re-establish the Kuwaiti monarchy? 
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Constitution
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:22:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.230837.17903@oakhill.sps.mot.com> jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry) writes:
>
>>	Regarding the proposal you replied to, Congress would not be passing 
>>a law, but an amendment to the Constitution, in which case the S.C. would
>>be obliged to uphold the amendment.
>
>
>Come on Joe, the congress cannot in itself pass an amendment to
>the Consitution.  For that to happen the congress would write
>the thing and then it must be ratified by the states.  Any law
>passed by the congress could be thrown out by the SC if they 
>find it, the law, in violation of the Constitution.  This is 
>a question that causes much debate.

	Sorry, I wasn't so much trying to describe the process, as to 
make the distinction between passing a law and passing an amendment,
as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. I think the amendment will be
the vehicle should Roe/Wade disappear.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life vs. Anti-Abortion (Re: fetus vs. baby)
Date: 13 Aug 92 02:33:26 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx

In article <1992Aug12.222816.11141@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:

>The solution to this is to educate people about birth control.  Funny
>how many of the same people who oppose abortion also don't want their
>kids to learn anything about birth control.

It's not funny; it's tragic.  They don't speak for me, and I don't speak
for them.  And don't you dare try to group me with them.


>Easy.  There is major opposition against infanticide.  Would you care
>to conduct one of those surveys to see how many people support a
>parent's right to kill an infant?

Nope.  I'm all survey'd out. :-)  


>There's nothing particularly special about human life.  This is a
>harsh cruel world we live in.  

Yep, it's a nasty wasty wittle world, so I'll blow you away, the next time 
you cut in front of me on I-35.  What's to stop me?  The odds of being caught 
are close to nil; without the *value* that I place on your life--what you are, 
what you will be, what you mean to those who love you--I could be one 
downright nasty SOB.  And this has nothing to do with the "G" word or
fear of divine retribution: it's a combination of both the value system
I grew up with and the one I rationally arrived at.  

Fortunately, for whatever reason, I suspect the majority of people *do*
respect life; it's the sociopaths we have to be wary of, especially those
that decide they want to be President. :-)


>We're just one of the species trying to
>survive and keep our genes going.  And any perspective that assumes a
>definable "moral and ethical fabric of society" IS a religious one.

Technically or conceptually?  Religion implies a God; yet I know several
atheists who are downright social puritans, who attempt to import a *wide*
variety of religious and social mores, but who merely reject the *God*.
They do so *very* rationally.

Of course, atheism is a "non-religion," but the point must be made that 
morality and ethics are a *social*, human, quality, not a religious one.  
We would have standards with or without an encompassing religion, and it's 
only reasonable to work within the pre-existing framework.  Thus, there's a 
reasonable argument that a fetus--which, unlike any other thing in a woman's 
body, WILL grow to be a fully functional, viable human being, IF permitted the
opportunity to grow to term--should have the same rights as a baby only
a few months older.  Again, I see no significant difference between killing 
the two; from an immediate-productivity and cost perspective, they're both 
worthless, ugly masses of flesh.  Except, perhaps, that a parent who kills
a baby would likely do it "hands-on," which might discourage the practice;
whereas an abortion is a nice, sanitary "medical procedure" done by some
doctor, and usually the patient doesn't even see the fetus.  Too *disturb-
ing*, you see...






---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:09:00 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Aug19.041907.5222@tamsun.tamu.edu> dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:

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

I find this beyond interesting, since I was of the opinino that there
were also more men than women who were 'pro-life' (and by quite a
large margin).  I'm not sure what conclusion that leaves us with.

Where did these figures come from and how were they arrived at?  What
I mean by that is what categories were there offered to the people
questioned (not interpretations of categories, but actual categories),
etc.  And yes, I will even accept a reference to a news broadcast.
:-) 


-- 
"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: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: fetus vs. baby
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:33:52 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21350@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Aug11.175318.22237@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>Utter hogwash, but fine.  Let him choose.  "Anyone here present who
>>has objection to this abortion, speak now."  If the embryo or foetus
>>doesn't speak up, it just agreed.

>Sounds like you just legalized the murder of anyone that is deaf, mute,
>or doesn't speak English.

Well, when the initial premise was stupid ("get the choice of the
child" (what child?)), one should probably expect stupid responses
back.  So I gave him one.  You tell me a way to get the opinion of
something that doesn't even have brainwaves yet, much less speak
Egnlish or any other language, and I'll be happy to solicit its
opinion.  Until then, the original plaint remains stupid.


-- 
"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: fetus vs. baby
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:32:24 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug20.153617.19193@axis.dsg.ti.com> marvin@skinner.dsg.ti.com (Marvin Heffler) writes:

>Please, give sources for this data. Also, I would like to see where someone
>can prove the causation between distributing condoms and teen pregnancies.
>I bet if there were also a control group of teens, the prenancy rates would
>be about the same, or most likely lower for the group that used the
>condoms. I think the same goes for sex education. 

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Marvin Heffler               Texas Instruments - Information Technology Group
>(512) 250-6829               12501 Research Blvd. MS 2078   Austin, TX  78759
>                             Internet: marvin@skinner.dsg.ti.com
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marvin's probably right, here.  Teen pregnancies have gone up due to just 
plain more sex, and the condom distribution is coincidental, IMHO.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "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: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:11:35 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Aug12.234710.13961@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:

>In article <21327@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug10.222832.22830@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>> >Exodus 21:22-25:
>> >
>> >     22 And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with
>> >        child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further
>> >        injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may
>> >        demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.
>> >     23 But if there is any further injury [meaning to the woman],
>> >        then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,
>> >     24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
>> >     25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
>> 
>> Yes, it sure is clear cut.  If the death is accidental, it is treated as
>> a lessor degree offense.  If the injury is intentional, it is an eye for
>> an eye, a life for a life.  This "[ meaning to the woman ]" doesn't
>> appear in my Bible.  But certainly "further injury" to the woman WOULD
>> include the death of her child.  And then it is "life for life."
> 
>That doesn't make any sense at all.  It details the penalty if the 
>fetus dies (miscarriage).  How can you claim that the "further injury"
>part would refer to the fetus dying when it's already dead?

I think the 'pro-life' proponents trying to reinterpret this bit of
the Bible into agreement also need to consider just what Jewish law
(what the Bible was written in the context of, after all) said about
abortion, when the woman was considered to be 'with child', etc.


-- 
"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: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Evil, Assault Birth Control?   (was Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Summary: Nice try, Robert - but this doesn't belong in alt.flame
Date: 22 Aug 92 16:58:07 GMT
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Followup-To: An appropriate newsgroup
Distribution: tx
Organization: A Glorified, Overheated Swamp

Nice try, Robert - but this doesn't belong in alt.flame ... although you 
are welcome to send your own articles to /dev/null if you so desire.  

In article <1992Aug22.065449.18291@cactus.org> rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes:
- >people... define 'people' and then we can continue this arguement.  I
- >don't consider a 'fetus' a person.
- 
- I don't consider a baby a person, either, but that doesn't mean I approve
- of the idea of killing them before they become *too* human-like, if, at
- some point, they become too much of a burden.

	Why do you think that a neonate is not a person.  If the being 
   in question is not a person, then it has no more rights than a cow.
   Of course, if some of the animal-rights folk get their way, cows may 
   have more rights than people.  :-)  


- Religious upbringing has nothing to do with it.  I'm a pragmatist.  I
- don't know if there's a God, or a heaven or a hell.  I choose to err on the
- side of caution, to assume there isn't, and to give each conceived human bei
- the opportunity to live what may very well be his only chance at life.  That
- life is the only "given" we have.  Everything else--your life-vessel
- theory, organized religion, etc.--are articles of faith.

	But you just said that you don't consider them people, so what 
   legal (or philosophical/religious) principle did you use to determine 
   that non-persons have more rights than persons.  If I (a person) fail 
   to provide food for a stray dog (a non-person) am I guilty of murder? 
   Or does the right-to-life apply only to certain genetic codes, without 
   regard for sentience?  IMHO, sentience is more important than race.  

	Too, if you really desire to "give each conceived human being the 
   opportunity to live" you must then oppose all non-barrier methods of 
   contraception.  After all, if you allow women to use the pill or IUD, 
   you are permitting them to flush a fertilized egg out of their body, 
   thus denying the conceived non-person the opportunity to live.  Right?  


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack   |   "To use taxes to cure a deficit is like using 
 kossack@rice.edu   |    leeches to cure anemia."    -- Ronald Reagan 
  +1 713 240 2073   |   "Voodoo Economics!"            -- George Bush
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 15 Aug 92 14:37:14 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:

> In article <TqgFPB2w164w@keys.lonestar.org>, cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chri
>  
> |> The best solution, I think, is for justices to have a consistent, sound,
> |> proven set of principals by which they can consistently interpret the
> |> Constitution.  Only one exists: "original intent."  See Robert Bork's book
> |> for an exposition of this viewpoint.
> 
> This is what Supreme Courts have always done.  It's just that you and
> Robert Bork get mad when different justices examine the same documents
> and come up with different interpretations of original intent. 

I disagree; Supreme Court justices have _not_ always used "original intent".
That's where the court makes trouble for all of us. (BTW, I think that over
the course of our history, both "liberal" and "conservative" justices have
violated the principal of original intent.)

> Unfortunately the founding fathers didn't leave behind an oracle to
> consult, and the Constitution was *purposely* written in the most
> general terms.

The founding fathers did leave behind writings such as the Federalist Papers
and notes taken at the Constitutional Convention.  The Congress which passed
the Bill of Rights also produced, I think, records of debates over the
amendments.  Court cases which touched on various of the Bill of Rights (and
other Constitutional issues) have produced written opinions which are
available for review. There are probably more forms of historical evidence
around that permit us to ascertain original intent on many significant
points of law.  Thus there is ample historical evidence to support original
intent.  And yes, the Constitution was purposefully written in broad
strokes.  One must review the aforementioned evidence as well as Federal
laws to see how we have filled in the strokes.

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: The NAACP (was: Re: HR 4983)
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:07:58 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <21367@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> In article <00713652409@elgamy.sccsi.com> elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
>>As my friends at Dodson would put it (though they weren't talking
>>specifically about you, but, rather, a certain person from Dallas):
> 
> I refuse to support handouts for blacks because handouts create needless
> dependency on the part of the recipient.  The NAACP supports increased
> wealth re-distribution schemes.  I refuse to accept education solutions
> which treat blacks "specially" (that is, race norming of scores to
> create the false impression of educational equality) because LOWERING
> standards has never produced any result but LOWERED results.  The NAACP
> stands by race norming of college enterance exams.  I refuse to accept
> racial set-asides and other forms of racial "protectionism" because it
> prevents blacks who are capable of performing equally from being taken
> seriously, and those who are incapable are never forced to deal with
> the reality that the need more and better skills.

	While I totaly agree on this, I think that in general you are being
a little hard on the whole organization.  There are other areas where they
have done excellent work, although not as much on black issues.

	It is interesting to see the NAACP turn self-serving, much like the
Labor Unions seem to have done.  It has turned into another organization that
will do anything to prove need for its existence, but should turn to new goals
rather than trying to invent issues.

> -- 
> 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."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Republican Candidates
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:52:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Aug19.055853.22320@cactus.org> hen3ry@cactus.org (Henry Velick) writes:

>In article <7138@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug17.192005.1787@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>>>Since the most compelling quality Bush claims to have is his outstanding
>>>foreign policy record [...]
>>
>>Actually, Bush's most compelling quality to me is that he's the only effective
>>brake on an amok, Democrat-controlled Congress. Clinton would let Congress
>>spend this country into oblivion.

>Do you think he'd have spent, what was it, forty, sixty billion
>dollars to kill tens (hundreds?) of thousands of civilians, to
>restore a repressive monarchy in Kuwait? That's an awful lot of
>school lunches and job-training programs.

Well, it is until you watch the price for oil go up 300%-400% because
of Iraqi pressure on the other states in the region (which they would
bend to, if Iraq was allowed to become the undisputed strongman in the
region).  Face it; this was a good call on George Bush's part.  I just
wish he'd quit with the moralizing about motives.

I also think we'd have a tough time getting the Germans, Japanese,
etc., to reimburse us for funds spent on school lunches and
job-training programs.

[Net cost to us of the Gulf War simply wasn't that high, in monetary
terms.]


-- 
"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.