HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: darylb@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Daryl Biberdorf)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Fetal Brainwaves (was: Re: fetus vs. baby)
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:00:01 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.

In article <1992Aug17.152212.9045@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <21370@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>This is from "Fetal Growth" p. 226 "1250 Healthcare Questions Women
>>Ask"
>
>Who publishes this book, pray tell?  Why do I get the feeling that it
>is from a somewhat biased source?
>
>>	"40 days      The baby's brain waves can be detected,
>>		      recorded and even read by a doctor."

Biased source or not, it's a correct figure.  Six to eight weeks of
gestation is the figure I've seen quoted in every single book on
child development that I've read.

>The figure I've been given (by someone whose words I trust a hell of a
>lot more than I will ever trust the words of someone like you) is that
>human brain waves appear between the 4th and 5th month.  Tell you
>what, though.  I'll ask her to take a look in her Embryology textbook
>and make sure that her memory isn't flawed.  THEN I will call you a
>liar (again).

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a gynecologist who used to run the largest
abortion clinic in the world, says six to eight weeks.  Oddly enough,
Dr. Nathanson now finds himself on the pro-life side of things after
looking seriously at what he was doing.  In the introduction to his
book _Aborting_America_, I believe he says he was personally
responsible for performing tens of thousands of abortions.  He's
not what you would call a religious fanatic either; he's a Jewish
atheist.  His arguments are mostly built on logic and reason.  

As a suggestion, Fred, I'd highly recommend your personally making
use of a public library and the treasures within instead of relying
on word-of-mouth information for everything.  You could put your
own doubts completely to rest if you'd simply go to a public library
and look at some encyclopedias or child development texts.

Daryl
--
Daryl Biberdorf                 |  Compaq Computer Corporation | standard
darylb@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com |  20555 SH 249  M/S 060701    | disclaimer
dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu         |  Houston, TX 77070           | applies
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: fetus vs. baby
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 00:23:40 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <21375@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
 
|> You can get a box of condoms from your local HEB for about $4.  This
|> wasn't the case 40 years ago.  You can also get a slew of other birth
|> control products, many of which are recent inventions.

Which does you absolutely no good if you don't know what a condom is,
because your mother wouldn't talk about it, and the fundies wouldn't
let you learn about it in school.

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I tortured, and the
  world screams, 'Kiss me, son of God'" -- TMBG
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Lottery
Date: 15 Aug 92 22:29:28 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

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

> In article <2TgFPB3w164w@keys.lonestar.org>, cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
> (Chris Winemiller) writes:
> |> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> |> > Well, you could try to vote out the Governor and her big spending cohort
> 
> This comment is perplexing.  What "big spending" has Ann Richards been
> responsible for?

She has favored the increased taxation for schooling; she has favored the
legalized gambling at horsetracks, which I predict will receive greater tax
subsidies in the future, in the form of decreased taxation of the
establishments; she has favored a state income tax (spoken through Lt. Gov'r
Bullock).  Is that enough?

> You voted for Mr. "Lay back and enjoy it" Blatant Millions?

Yes; not that it was a really enjoyable alternative, mind you.

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
From: rbutera@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert John Butera)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you
Date: 19 Aug 92 03:49:41 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Rice University

In article <SBYRNES.92Aug18224137@rio-grande.rice.edu> sbyrnes@rice.edu (Steven Byrnes) writes:
>
>If I'm not mistaken, Bush was also one of the strong "Voodoo Economics"
>criers back in the '80 primaries, but dropped that stance when he became
>Ronnie Raygun, er, Reagan's Veep...
>

Hey also denied ever using that phrase, then NBC aired TV footage of
his utterances.

Back in the seventies, Barry Goldwater said that Bush was a political
opportunist who would say whatever it takes to further his career.  What
foresight ...

-- 
Rob Butera - ECE grad student   Rice University, Houston, TX   rbutera@rice.edu
"In the worst case scenario, investigators would find a direct link to
 financing Iraqi military expenditures." - George Bush, February 13, 1990,
 in a memo to his secretary of Agriculture
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:39:52 GMT

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.

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?

By your reasoning, an egg IS a chicken.


-- 
"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: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Poll results
Date: 19 Aug 92 03:51:23 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

Well there were not very many replies to my poll query, but here
is what turned up. Remember that this is not statistically meaningful
because the sample size was too small....

                   61% Clinton
                   23% Bush
                   15% Marrou (libertarian)
                    1% will not vote


Political view of the night: If the person really responsible for
the fall of the Berlin & communism should be President, then we should
vote for Gorbachev!
From: jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Governor
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:11:40 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: APRDL, Motorola Inc., Austin Texas


>She has favored the increased taxation for schooling; she has favored the
>legalized gambling at horsetracks, which I predict will receive greater tax
>subsidies in the future, in the form of decreased taxation of the
>establishments; she has favored a state income tax (spoken through Lt. Gov'r
>Bullock).  Is that enough?

> You voted for Mr. "Lay back and enjoy it" Blatant Millions?

>Yes; not that it was a really enjoyable alternative, mind you.

>Chris

Well it was already pointed out that you were, to be kind, "mistaken"
on the state income tax issue so I will let that "lie".  As for as 
increased funding for schools and gambling at horsetracks, what about
this bothers you?  She is doing exactly what she said she would do.
The fact that you are in a minority.  Governor Richards is extremely 
popular.  uMy only concern about Governor Richards is the chance 
Texas will lose her to a national office.  Who knows it may be Senator
Richards in the near future.  I suspect our junior Senator hopes she
will choose to stay in Austin.  No one is perfect but Ann Richards
is one of few politicians I can say I am proud of having voted for.
And judging from opinion polls I am FAR from being alone. 


James L. Berry  jcj6@giedi.sps.not.com                 
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: cramer@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Cramer)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix  (508) 655-3848
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 01:44:18 GMT

jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
: 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.
: 
: The clause which you have so much trouble with is quite similiar to
: the clauses "under some circumstances", "under certain circumstances",
: "under limited circumstances" and so on.  The word "any" is defined by
: my $3.95 Websters as "any one or ones <take ~ books you like>".  You
: should go buy one of those dictionaries.

"A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the
skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content
according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used."

	-- Justice Holmes, Towne. v. Eisner, 245 US 418,425 (1918).

Dictionary definitions are not dispositive in matters of law.  The
totality of the circumstances is meaningful -- are you willing to
say the poll questions could not be interpreted as others have 
suggested?  Perhaps not all of the polled folks have access to JFH's
$3.95 Websters.  How about the word "abortion"?  Depending on one's
own circumstances, that word could translate into "murder", into
"gosh that's a subject I don't want to get pinned down on", into 
"if only I had had that abortion when I was 17", into "if only I had
not had that abortion when I was 17", into "there but for the grace
of God go I", into "well, whatever the church says", and so on and so on.

Bill Cramer

251 West Central Street, Suite 142	| "If the law supposes *that*,...
Natick, MA 01760 USA			|    the law is an ass, an idiot."
Internet: cramer@unixland.natick.ma.us	|        -- Dickens
CIS: 70322,3412				|
From: ian@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Ian Parberry)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:36:35 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: University of North Texas, Denton

>>>>Well, Jeanette is now about 4 months pregnant.
>>>Hey, congratulations.
>>Fuck you.

Since John Haugh announced in the posting from which the first quote is
taken that he is no longer going to listen to or submit to the net, there
is much to wonder about the third quote, which contained his signature.
Either:
1.  He lied about leaving the net, and he is the author of the third quote.
2.  A malicious person forged the third posting.
3.  Haugh set up the situation to make it look like 2.
My preferential vote is 2/1/3.
____
Ian Parberry ian@ponder.csci.unt.edu (817) 565-2845 Dept. of Computer Sciences,
Univ. of North Texas, P.O. Box 13886, Denton, TX 76203-3886
"Bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of an expanding bureaucracy"
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 12 Aug 92 23:36:20 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <MZIur*CO0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> In article <1992Aug10.172030.17215@NeoSoft.com>, Doug Andersen writes:
> 
> > In article <5Votr*2N0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> > > Bush will get a net positive vote from the abortion issue.  However, whether he
> > > does, or not, is irrelevant to the issue of whether abortion is wrong.
> > > 
> > > Bush will win or lose on the economy.  (Right now, lose looks likely.  However, by
> > > election time, things may change significantly.)
> >  
> > There is absolutely no evidence for that first sentence.  The fact is that
> 
> Yes, there is.  Look at the last 3 Presidential elections.  The pro-abortion
> candidate lost by LARGE majorities.  (Reagan twice, Bush once.)  Bush is actually
> less anti-abortion than Reagan was.
> 
 
Jim, that is such an absurd conclusion that I don't even know where to
start.  Have you ever taken statistics?  Have you ever heard the term
"correlation does not imply causation"?  
 
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps there might be other variables
at work in those elections?  I've never seen anyone, even the most
ardent pro-lifer, claim that the elections of Reagan and Bush were
proof that America is essentially against abortion.
 
By the way, you quoted my message out of context so that it implies
that my "no evidence" statement referred to the "Bush will win or lose
on the economy" statement (which I agree with), rather than the "abortion
is a net plus for Bush" statement.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4101 alt.politics.bush:1888 alt.politics.clinton:2104
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Republican Candidates
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:20:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

Since the most compelling quality Bush claims to have is his outstanding
foreign policy record, and Jim Baker seems to be responsible for that,
why not just toss GHB and replace him with Baker?  Why should you settle
for the dummy when you can get the ventriloquist? 


		Bye, Judy - Clinton/Gore '92!
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: results of straw poll
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:19:54 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:

> Does anyone have any objections to me posting the results of my
> poll here? I said it was for my use only, but several people have
> written me to ask that I post the results....

Go for it.

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Men and the Abortion Issue
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:16:58 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <uylxr*HQ0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.000301.5336@NeoSoft.com>, Joe Mullally writes:
>
>> In article <lI2ur*VN0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>> >I don't think so.  I suspect that the prime motivation for many men to be
>> >pro-choice is the idea that women would be more reluctant to have sex if
>> >abortions were illegal.
>> 
>> 	And yours, that sex scares you. Fair?
>
>No, but you knew that when you posted it.

	So, we agree that misstating the opposition's motivation so as
to cast it in the worst possible light is easy, and worthless?



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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"
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:22:58 GMT

In <1992Aug18.171231.22934@tamsun.tamu.edu> dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:

>In article <1992Aug11.234350.21681@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> darylb@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:
>>There was an article in the Village Voice a couple of years ago that
>>talked about a new trend called Abortion Chic.  Basically, the goal
>>was form women to express both their fertility and femininity sa
>>well as their control.  To do this they would deliberately get pregnant
>>(the fertility/femininity part) and then abort (the control part).
>>
>>I have the article in my files at home.  I'll cite it Wednesday evening.

>Sorry it took me so long to post this.  I decided to post the entire
>article because most of it seems relevant.

>From the Feb 4 - Feb 10, 1981, issue of Village Voice (it's older than
>I thought):

>=========================================================================

>  Abortion Chic  The Attraction of 'Wanted-Unwanted Pregnancies'
>  by Leslie Savan (probably copyrighted by The Village Voice or Ms. Savan)

Well, the article says what you said it did, but it offers zero proof
for its contentions (even though it, itself, is in print).  This
strikes me more as one of those social commentary pieces based on the
opinions of the author, which means it is about as 'factual' and
'verifiable' as most net postings are.

Afraid I don't consider this article as evidence that any such group
of women actually exists.  Even the article itself claims that the
motivations are 'subconscious', which is sort of like what we hear
here from Jim about how we really all KNOW that a clump of 4 cells is
a baby, but we deny it so we can feel better.


-- 
"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)
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:20:27 GMT

In <7qGwr*iQ0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>In article <1992Aug12.163959.35905@watson.ibm.com>, John Iacoletti writes:
>> 
>> There was no mention of rape in the Roe v. Wade opinion.

>I never said that there was.  Read the above.  It is likely that the Roe case
>would never have been considered if she had told the truth.

So what?  The decision was a finding on the principle, which would
hold whether the case which initiated the investigation was true,
false, or merely theoretical.  What's your point, Jim?

[Re: Your point.  To paraphrase, "It's dead, Jim."]


-- 
"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.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Quayle on Values:  Where he stands and his background
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 18:16:37 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <1992Aug13.140641.124@NeoSoft.com>, rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
|> 	BTW, your (and Daryl's) point about P.P. does verify to my satisfaction
|> that they're biased, and I agree that's a crock of sh*t. They ought to be 
|> doing exactly what you are saying- trying to at least give both sides of the
|> story, if not outright advocating carrying the child to term. There shouldn't
|> be any place that's _pushing_ abortion, IMO. I defend it, but it should 
|> not be pushed off as an equal alternative to having the child. 

So in other words, bias doesn't bother you if it's toward the 
"correct" side?

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I tortured, and the
  world screams, 'Kiss me, son of God'" -- TMBG
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Exodus 21:22 (was Re: HR 4983)
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:31:34 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <l8lee6INNa6j@deimos.cs.utexas.edu> siddarth@cs.utexas.edu (Siddarth Subramanian) writes:
>What is the relevance of scripture common to exactly two religions to
>state policy?

It is common to exactly THREE religions.  Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.

It is important to state policy because state policy is founded on the
moral principles given in the Bible.
-- 
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."