HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 16:26:34 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

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).

Assuming that this cult ever got past the discussion stage, there's
still a big difference between that and "NO pregnancy should go un-
aborted".  Jim Pritchett has this penchant for wild exaggeration,
apparently because of his Rush Limbaugh idolatry.

-- 
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: sbyrnes@rice.edu (Steven Byrnes)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:41:37 GMT
	<Bt2w14.9wq@xcluud.sccsi.com> <1992Aug17.213416.4391@tamsun.tamu.edu>
	<Bt6rJ0.GB2@rice.edu>
Reply-To: sbyrnes@rice.edu (Steven Byrnes)
Distribution: tx
Organization: Yeah, right, sure!

On Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:40:12 GMT, Joseph A. Watters said:

> However, there is a bill in Congress, I forget the name, that if passed
> would make medically safe abortions available by federal law.  The idea
> is that if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, Congress could immediately
> keep abortions legal through non-constitutional means.

That wouldn't preclude the Supreme Court from, sooner or later, striking
down the federal law as unconstitutional, right?

> George Bush - a man willing to abruptly drop what he supposedly believes
> in and actively work to see the opposite happen in his country in order
> to attain higher levels of political power.

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...

> Gee, sounds like a pro-choice position to me.  Yet this man is busily
> trying to find ways to deny women legal, safe abortions if they so
> choose.

Read his lips...  <cough>

Steven
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4366 alt.politics.bush:2541 alt.politics.clinton:2631
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Republican Candidates
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 06:16:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug20.030841.11841@technology.com>, Richard Murphy writes:

> In article <Nglxr*DQ0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug17.192005.1787@technology.com>, Judy McMillin writes:
> >
> >> 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? 
> >
> >So, you favor dumping Bill and replacing him with Hillary?
> 
> I'm waiting for them to dump Quayle and replace him with you, Jim.

Mr. Quayle is much better qualified than I.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Quayle on Values: Where he stands and his background
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:15:59 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21346@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Aug11.212219.10834@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>>Wrong.  A state may CHOOSE to regulate or proscribe abortion except 
>>where it is necessary for the preservation of the life or health of 
>>the mother.  Many states CHOOSE not to do so.

>I sit corrected.  I can only hope that we get a Supreme Court ruling
>soon that corrects this gross deficiency.

>>|> With viability at 21 weeks right now, there are QUITE A FEW illegal
>>|> abortions being performed.
>>
>>If that's the case, then it's up to the states to legislate and
>>enforce this.

>No, it is up to the Supreme Court to protect the rights of citizens.
>If the "compelling interest" of the mother is protected by the court,
>so too is the "compelling interest" of a child that is now able to
>survive unless medically "terminated".  The right to life, stated in
>the 5th Amendment, is not dependent on the whims of the state
>legislatures.

Of course, this (time of viability) also raises the question of just
what qualify (medically speaking) as 'heroic measures' in helping that
premature baby to survive.  If 'heroic measures' are required, can you
say it is 'viable'?  If the objection to abortion at this point is
'medical termination', surely doing nothing does not qualify as
'termination'.  Therefore, if 'heroic measures' are necessary to
prevent that premature baby from dying, is it 'viable'?  After all, it
wasn't 'medically terminated'.


-- 
"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.
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4046 alt.politics.clinton:1981
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Trade Imbalance
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:34:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <1992Aug14.141443.21682@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>Consider that the USA has a finite number of dollars to go around.  When we
>buy imported goods, a number of those dollars go out of the country and they
>are not available for Americans here to spend or get paid or save.  Now, 
>when a foreign country buys our goods, a number of those dollars come back
>here to Americans to spend, get paid, or save or invest. Can you see that
>if more dollars go out than come in (a trade deficit), there is less money
>here for us? 

I saw one explanation with the reasoning that foreign businesses will
pile up US $s which they've got to get rid of _somehow_ so they buy
from us.  Suppose I do a booming business selling paperclips to the
Mongolians.  Now I've got a pile of tughriks.  What do I do?  I start
buying stuff from Mongolia.

The flaw that has ocurred to me is unlike tughriks, alot of people
around the world will accept US $s so a foreign company doesn't need to
buy US products in order to get rid of their $s.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail.
From: dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:49:26 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

In article <1992Aug14.142626.2321@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>OK, I assume that this perversion is the "right to privacy" which
>pro-lifers find so odious.  I finally had to jump in and ask ya'll
>- do you really want to live in a country where you DON'T have a right
>to privacy?  

The right to privacy to do *what*?  This is what's so odious about
Griswold v. Connecticut; it doesn't say exactly WHAT types of privacy
are protected.  To paraphrase Robert Bork (_The_Tempting_of_America_ --
an excellent work), men beat their wives and children in PRIVATE, people
murder people in PRIVATE, people conspire in PRIVATE.

>Does this bother you?  Do you find privacy a desirable thing to
>have?  If so, how do you maintain it from someone who wants to
>breach it?

I find privacy a fairly desirable thing to have FOR SOME THINGS.
See above for a partial list of exceptions.

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
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:25:35 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Aug18.182636.24959@sneaky.lonestar.org> gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) writes:

>>How does the convicted murderer kill anyone if you lock him up for
>>life with no parole?  So, why the espousement of so many 'right to

>Unless one is prepared to weld the convicted murderer into his cell,
>and with few and small openings so he can't grab someone, he can kill 
>prison guards.  (Some people are capable of killing with
>their bare hands.  Others can use weapons like sheets or plastic forks.)

How many prison gaurds are killed by prisoners in a year in this
country?  Damned few would be my guess, but it is only that.  A guess.
Do you have something better that indicates otherwise?  If not, this
one in several million chance that a prisoner might give a guard a
hangnail or something just isn't a credible reason to kill a human
being (if the argument is indeed about life).  After all, how many
prisoners would you have to kill to save one guard?


-- 
"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: marvin@skinner.dsg.ti.com (Marvin Heffler)
Subject: Re: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life vs. Anti-Abortion (Re: fetus vs. baby)
Reply-To: marvin@skinner.dsg.ti.com (Marvin Heffler)
Organization: Texas Instruments, Austin, TX
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 14:50:27 GMT

In article <Milxr*EQ0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
|>In article <1992Aug17.170802.53@turtle.fisher.com>,
boyd@turtle.fisher.com writes:
|>
|>> In article <T51iPB2w164w@keys.lonestar.org>, cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
|>> (Chris Winemiller) writes:
|>> 
|>> >            ...  Secondarily, the fact that so many people _are_
|>> > religious might be evidence that their _is_ something supernatural,
|>> > outside of all of us.  ...
|>> >
|>> 
|>> Once upon a time a great many people thought the earth was flat, did
that make
|>> it flat?
|>
|>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!
|>

Yes, people will be really shocked when Jesus returns and says, "Oy vey! Look
what these meshugene gentiles did to my message."

|>
|>                                                Jim Pritchett
|>
|>
|>UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
|> or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
                       

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marvin Heffler               Texas Instruments - Information Technology Group
(512) 250-6829               12501 Research Blvd. MS 2078   Austin, TX  78759
                             Internet: marvin@skinner.dsg.ti.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4345 houston.general:905
From: jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Teachers
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:32:03 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: APRDL, Motorola Inc., Austin Texas

>I work in an inner-city school with a 98% black population, a black
>principal, and a black supervisor. All of us are very conservative
>educationally. We believe in direct instruction, high expectations,
>no-excuses education. Like all workers, we want decent wages for decent
>work, no crime, good schooling for our children (in fact, one of my
>friends, a teacher at another inner-city school, wants me to work the
>levers to get her child into the Montessori magnet program at my school),
>good government that keeps the roads and schools fixed and doesn't waste a
>bunch of money on spectacles like $35 million dollar administration
>buildings (which, alas, the late departed superintendent Joan of Ice built
>for Houston ISD, bond payments on which are still dragging along).
>We'd also like it if the kids that we taught didn't so often come to school
>dirty and hungry and with diseases that could and should have been treated
>years ago -- many kids who need hearing aids or glasses, for example, never
>get them, and many kids who have diabetes will never pass age 30 due to
>haphazard regulation of their condition.

>Yeah, I guess we *ARE* a bunch of left-wing radical kook-nuts, eh?

>--
> Eric Lee Green  elg@elgamy.sccsi.com         Dodson Elementary
> (713) 437-6908  uunet!nuchat!elgamy!elg      Houston, TX
>              "Kids are kids, no matter what"

And they say we no longer have heros.  In my book Eric and his fellow
teachers are our true heros.  By all means you have my deapest respect, 
KEEP SQUEAKing,  someday this country will agree and give y'all the support,
respect, and rewards that y'all deserve.  God WILL bless you. 

I wonder if you are aware of the programs here in Austin in which local 
companies are adopting schools,  actually I believe Motorola has three. 
A teacher Sisterinlaw of nine in Illinois had never heard of such a thing.
It seems to be quite successful and could provide some needed help in Houston. 
  
Good Luck!! 
James L. Berry  jcj6@giedi.sps.not.com
From: jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Privacy
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:17:47 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: APRDL, Motorola Inc., Austin Texas

>>OK, I assume that this perversion is the "right to privacy" which
>>pro-lifers find so odious.  I finally had to jump in and ask ya'll
>>- do you really want to live in a country where you DON'T have a right
>>to privacy?  

>The right to privacy to do *what*?  This is what's so odious about
>Griswold v. Connecticut; it doesn't say exactly WHAT types of privacy
>are protected.  To paraphrase Robert Bork (_The_Tempting_of_America_ --
>an excellent work), men beat their wives and children in PRIVATE, people
>murder people in PRIVATE, people conspire in PRIVATE.

>>Does this bother you?  Do you find privacy a desirable thing to
>>have?  If so, how do you maintain it from someone who wants to
>>breach it?

>I find privacy a fairly desirable thing to have FOR SOME THINGS.
>See above for a partial list of exceptions.

Bingo! Now let's just try to resolve exactly WHO will decide what
SOME THINGS should be.  And to paraphrase bork even further, people
make love in PRIVATE, people read books in PRIVATE, people decide to
have children in PRIVATE.  So now you say that privacy is desirable
FOR SOMETHINGS.  Who is to decide what these somethings are to be?
The right wing that now has control of the Repulican Party claim
to be Conservatives.  They further claim that this means they what
the Government out of the lives of the people.  A noble cause indeed.
But look at what they really want, Ban Abortion, Ban funding to 
offensive art works, cut funding for PBS, ban the "liberal press". 
on and on and on!
Sound like a hell-of-alot of government in our lives to me!! 
   
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 see nothing in this definition
that even remotely sounds like change.  Now let's look at the word
Fundamentalism  "A movement or point of view characterized by rigid
adherence to fundamental or basic principles".  Sounds a lot closer
to what We are hearing from the far right isn't it.  In fact this 
lack of tolerance for other beliefs can be seen in fundamentalism
through out the world, be it Christian fundamentalism or Moslem
fundamentalism.   

I do not believe anyone should be forced to believe as I do,  I will
oppose ANY attempt by these fundamenatlists to force their beliefs on 
me or my family. 

>Daryl


James L. Berry  jcj6@giedi.sps.not.com                 
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Quayle on Values:  Where he stands and his background
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 18:09:04 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <21346@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
|> No, it is up to the Supreme Court to protect the rights of citizens.
|> If the "compelling interest" of the mother is protected by the court,
|> so too is the "compelling interest" of a child that is now able to
|> survive unless medically "terminated".

Not unless we first repeal the part of the 14th amendment that says 
"All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States . . ."

|> The right to life, stated in
|> the 5th Amendment, is not dependent on the whims of the state
|> legislatures.

Fetuses don't have any constitutional rights -- to life or anything
else.

-- 
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: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Quayle on Values:  Where he stands and his background
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:28:48 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <UmJur*JO0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.215849.23613@NeoSoft.com>, Joe Mullally writes:
>
>> 	Reasons to suspend free speech:
>> 1. It's just wrong.
>> 2. No other reason, refer to #1, and to Bill Harris, who decides 
>>    in cases of right/wrong.
>
>How about:
>
>1.  Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is illegal because innocent people can
>    get hurt.  This is very much the same thing.

	Take it to court, then, and we'll see. I think your case wouldn't
stand a chance. Do you?

>2.  You can't hire someone to commit murder.  Why should you be able to encourage
>    someone to do it?

	I shouldn't. You shouldn't. He (Ice T) shouldn't. And, didn't.
It's a song, Jim. You may not like to admit that. You might want that 
we protect the system as it is while there is clearly a group of 
enraged citizens. So, perhaps we should censor black folks' music. 
I think it'd be consistent with "pious erroneous", the odd inability
to learn from the past that you don't just force your desires for
utopia on those that spoil the vision...otherwise, they get even 
more determined. You censor black music, and it'll be repetition,
repetition of the same kind of mistakes your brand of Christian
always seems to make- a "kneejerk" (predictable) reaction. I keep
trying to tell you that I agree with what you want. I'd love for there
not to be a song called "Cop Killer". But, dammit, there is, and there
will be after you suppress it. 


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Fetal rights v. Women's rights
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:12:50 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <PACO.92Aug20115513@legia.cs.rice.edu> paco@cs.rice.edu (Paul Havlak) writes:


>    For me, the central problem of abortion is:

>        There is no way to grant and protect fetal rights without
>        eliminating women's rights.

I don't know about _eliminating_.  Perhaps reducing their possibilities 
would be more appropriate.  It is a subject of debate exactly what their 
rights are, which is why there is an issue at all.

>    Define fetuses to be babies, and any woman could be charged with
>endangerment of or injury to a child, for actions take while pregnant
>(whether she realizes she's pregnant yet or not).  

Theoretically, yes.  Not to many persons are charged criminally when 
accidents happen to children, though, like when my stepdaughter fell out of 
a tree her natural father was not charged with anything.  He should not have 
been, of course.  Accidents happen.  I surely hope no one intends to use the 
law to incriminate in these situations.

>Any woman who has a
>miscarriage could be faced with a manslaughter charge, if she were
>found to have deliberately or negligently endangered the fetus by her
>actions.  The freedom of all fertile women would be eliminated.

Maybe, but intent would be _real_ hard to prove without some cooperation on 
the woman's part.  Of course, this is already happening to drug addicted 
mothers.  Should it not be?

>    The government should stay out of this legal tarpit, and focus on
>the health and welfare of biologically independent human beings.

Unfortunately, it cannot.  This is an issue with two formidable sides and 
the government will have to step in and take a position before anarchy rules 
the issue.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "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: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:36:04 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <exuptr.373.714353312@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>Sorry, but I must differ.  This is the LEGAL definition of murder.  Other 
>definitions include unnecessary taking of life.

Who gets to decide "unnecessary"? Neither you nor I are in the position
having the right to tell a woman that it's necessary that she continue her
pregnancy, regardless of any othe factors. Even if you could get pregnant, I
would not presume to try to tell you that.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
  "Anything that an F-4 can outturn is not maneuverable." -- Mary Shafer
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Republican Candidates
Date: 20 Aug 92 03:08:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <Nglxr*DQ0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.192005.1787@technology.com>, Judy McMillin writes:
>
>> 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? 
>
>So, you favor dumping Bill and replacing him with Hillary?

I'm waiting for them to dump Quayle and replace him with you, Jim.