HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:21:25 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <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:
> 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.

	But coma victims have recovered before...  Are they live or are they
Memorex?  Pulling the plug is a form a murder, since the person on the machine
is alive and you are failing to insure further survival.  Capital punishment
is murder, since you are causing a human being with brainwaves to die.  Self
defense is murder.  There are several forms of legal "murder", some of which
you obviously approve, and others you don't...

	Your approach on this is why I think you are being a hypocrite, since
you proclaim that human life is sacred, and taking human life is murder...
unless I politically approve of it...

> UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
>  or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
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: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 17 Aug 92 05:46:49 GMT
 <exuptr.289.713576483@exu.ericsson.se> <7109@lib.tmc.edu>
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <7109@lib.tmc.edu>, Jay Maynard writes:

> In article <exuptr.289.713576483@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
> >Let me get behind the think of your argument.  The woman has an "absolute
> >right" to choose not to support the fetus any longer.  Why does this change
> >at the instant of birth.  Why can the mother suddenly be held accountable
> >for not feeding or bathing the infant, in your opinion?  It's got nothing
> >to do with the fact that she can adopt, because then she is still providing
> >for the child indirectly.
> 
> If doesn't change at the instant of birth. The particular individual woman can
> choose not to support the child by giving it up for adoption. THe distinction
> is between one particular woman and someone in general.
> At birth, she is no longer biologically attached to the child, and so can
> choose not to support it.

No, she can't just choose not to support it.  She must provide for the child in
some manner (e.g. adoption.)  If she refuses to support the child, she can be
prosecuted just like those people in the news recently who starved their child.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4083 alt.politics.clinton:2077
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Trade Imbalance
Date: 17 Aug 92 13:22:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

Mr. Kossack, reversing a reduction in outbound American dollars is NOT an
increase.  An increase occurs when the treasury puts more money into circulation
and many people think that is inflationary; and they think it happens when 
money is in short supply here. An increase also occurs (I think?) when the
GPA increases, but this is supposedly not inflationary as it is indicative 
that we are producing more goods. . . .

I'm not sure about the above, I only had 2 years of economics and I've forgotten
most of it.  Again, this is a gross oversimplification, based on my, perhaps
mistaken, idea that anybody who thinks a trade imbalance is not important must
not know anything at all about economics.
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:07:52 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

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

>You might also read _Aborting_America_ by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, M.D.,
>a person of a Jewish atheist persuasion who cofounded NARAL,
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What is a Jewish athiest?  Are we talking an athiest who has Jewish
heritage, or is this someone who believes Moses was an overzealous
philospher?

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "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: siddarth@cs.utexas.edu (Siddarth Subramanian)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Exodus 21:22 (was Re: HR 4983)
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:36:38 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: deimos.cs.utexas.edu


My questions are regarding the relevance of this discussion.

First, it seems to be a passage concerning accidental miscarriage due
to men fighting (why not women fighting or men fighting women, one
wonders). What is its relevance to abortion?

Second, the only debate seems to be about what the laws should be
concerning abortion, not about its morality under specific religions.
What is the relevance of scripture common to exactly two religions to
state policy?

-- 

Siddarth Subramanian          INTERNET: siddarth@cs.utexas.edu
Austin, Texas                 UUCP:     uunet!cs.utexas.edu!siddarth
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 17 Aug 92 13:35:10 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas


Wow! I put my foot in it -- actually, I wasn't addressing BILL CLINTON -- I 
was responding to another person named BILL, but my cutesy reference to "Bill"
was misunderstood.  My apologies!
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:30:41 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <J7lxr*CQ0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>In article <1992Aug17.145419.8141@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:

>> If you had said "broadcast media", you might have a case.  However,
>> the claim that 'the news media (including newspapers, magazines, etc.)
>> is somehow 'left leaning' is simply not supported by the facts.  The

>You obviously don't know what you are talking about.  You probably think that
>the New York Times is unbiased.  We don't have time or space to count newspapers,
>but an unbiased observer would find that there are many more large liberal
>newspapers.

Shall we take a little straw poll here and see what most peoples'
impressions are?

>Let's see, there are basicly three important weekly news magazines.  Time and
>Newsweek are definitely left of center.  US News is more moderate to conservative.
>That is 2/3 left.  So, you are wrong about the weekly news magazines.

Time is left of center?  I haven't read one in a long time, but can it
have changed THAT much?

>Fred, do you come from another planet, or are you simply so liberal that you
>think that the media is conservative?

Jim, do you come from another planet, or are you simply such a fascist
that you think the print media are liberal?

Perhaps it would be useful for us to see just what kind of distorted
political spectrum you're using, Jim.  Why don't you tell us how you
are determining the difference between a liberal and a conservative?


-- 
"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: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.galor,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:34:16 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

In article <Bt2w14.9wq@xcluud.sccsi.com> paul@xcluud.sccsi.com (Paul Hutmacher) writes:
>In article <CORYWEST.92Aug15000038@helpdesk.rice.edu> corywest@rice.edu (Cory West) writes:
>>In article <wasg.713825815@titan> wasg@cs.rice.edu (Eric Salituro) writes:
>>
>>>  Let's Boot Operation Rescue Out Of Houston!
>>
>>	It's time that the government kept their hands off of our
>>bodies and out of our sex lives.
>
>What a noble but misguided comment.  Operation Rescue is the work of 
>religious fundamentalists and not your federal government.  Your federal
>government is not allowed to participate in such shenanigans.

(I decided to reply to the original thread and not to the followups.
Also note that the 'general' newsgroups have been excised from the
header.)

Operation Rescue has no power to enforce their will on the populace,
but if you'll take a gander at the Republican Party 1992 platform,
you'll find that the Republican party advocates a constitutional
amendment (!) banning medically unnecessary abortions *of any kind*.
Yes, their amendment would prevent victims of rape, incest and other
forms of molestation from aborting unwanted pregnancy. (Documentary
note: No, I haven't read the platform document itself, I received this
information from the news media. CNN, if you must know.)

So while OR != federal government, OR's views = official views of
Republican Party. That's what scares people.

>From what I have read most government types wish to distance themselves from
>OR.

Think again. President Bush has stated publicly that he fully supports
the current draft of the Republican Party platform, including the
anti-abortion amendment.

>Cheers.
>
>-- 
>"There is nothing to history.  No progress,          | Paul Hutmacher 
> no justice. There is nothing but random horror."    | Houston, Texas
>"Jupiter" in _The Difference Engine_ Gibson/Sterling | paul@xcluud.sccsi.com
-- 
# Rick Russell    | TAMU Meteorology   | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Internet) #
# "Snow Goons are bad news." - Calvin  |                                    #
From: jbrandt@NeoSoft.com (J Brandt)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinic Defense
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:20:05 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <14194@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, skywalker@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
> 
> You are correct, the doors stay open. One correction, we have 4,000
> defenders. 
> 
I've heard the 4,000 figure, but I consider that to be an overestimation
of the number who actually defend the clinics.  Don't forget that there
are a significant number of people who show up after all of the patients
are in just to stand and chant at the OR people.  And there are also a
large number who show up and are pro-choice but who won't actually get in
the line.
  
Also, to be fair, HPD is very helpful in defending the clinics.
They aren't as good at making sure the clinics stay open and women receive
medical services, but they really do keep the defenders from getting
beaten up.  Today, at the Hillcroft clinic, there were approximately 30
policement standing between the "sheep of god" and the defenders, and I
was glad they were there.  Those "lambs" looked incredibly mean.
I had no doubt at all that they would have been able to roll right over us
if the police hadn't been there.  There was a lamb standing 15 feet in
front of me who probably weighed about 250 pounds and he looked ready to
do serious damage.
-- 
Jaclyn Brandt
jbrandt@NeoSoft.com
--
From: jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Constitution
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:08:37 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: APRDL, Motorola Inc., Austin Texas


>	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.

James L. Berry  jcj6@giedi.sps.not.com
From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:03:28 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Gordon Burditt

>>     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,

>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."

If a woman has a miscarriage, the child is dead.  How does one
cause *FURTHER* injury to this child?  If "further injury" includes
the death of the child, then under what circumstances would/could
there be no further injury?  Why, then, is there a penalty 
specified for an impossible situation?

Does the Haugh dictionary include "premature live birth" as
one possible definition of "miscarriage"?

					Gordon L. Burditt
					sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Quayle on Values:  Where he stands and his background
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 00:17:35 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <21366@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
|> HBO did a documentary on abortion.  Virtually all of the women who
|> were shown broke down and bawled their eyes out after the abortion.
|> This isn't the "great relief" that Johniac describes.

This is great.  The American Pychological Association finds 200
studies that say the vast majority of women experience relief, and
your rebuttal is that you saw a few women crying on HBO.  Never mind
the fact that crying is common when experiencing relief following a
period of great stress. 

-- 
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
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 12 Aug 92 23:18:07 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <21321@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> In article <1992Aug10.172030.17215@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
> >There is absolutely no evidence for that first sentence.  The fact is that
> >the large majority of pro-life activists (people who are going to be
> >single issue voters) are already very conservative and wouldn't even
> >consider someone like Clinton.
> 
> You mean like the pro-life people who voted Casey in as governor of
> Pennsylvania and supported a senator who is for state funded healthcare
> and the former Bush Attorney General?
> 
> Get a clue.
 
What does the election of a pro-life Governor have to do with what
I said?  Nothing.  The fact is that the people who are single-issue
voters on abortion are not the type of people who are going to vote
for a moderate Democrat (if they are pro-life) or a moderate Republican
(if they are pro-choice). 
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:05:06 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1684710ACB.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (
Joseph L. Lockett) misquotes:

>texas.general, rice.general, rice.galor removed from posting line.
>Here we go....
> 
>In article <mumble> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) feebly flames:
> 
>>>See above.  'Pro-abortion' is a loaded term,
>>so is anti-choice, hypocrite.
>>>by the way, unless you're
>>>attempting (unsuccessfully) to 'subtly' advocate the anti-choice view.
> 
>Hmmm....  I don't think I ever attempted to be terribly 'subtle' about
>my reply.  The original poster insisted on sole use of the term 'pro-
>abortion' (a misnomer, since it argues all opponents of the religious
>right's fascism favor abortion, when many find it distasteful but
>support the rights of the individual over some possibly mythical Deity
>to decide).  So I thought I'd try the shoe out on the other foot.
>What's the matter, can't stand a taste of your own medicine?

Watch your attributions, you're responding to the wrong guy.  But just for 
grins, looks like you're the one who can't stand it.  I wasn't part of
the origional muck.

>>anti-choice and anti-life, that must be it.  Some people just can't see
>>how they do what they judge others for...
> 
>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.  

How about just plain Christian.  That's probably not much different from 
fundamentalist Protestant from your point-of-view.

>I'd sure like to hear from a 'pro-life'
>atheist, 

Probably won't find very many.  Why?  I'll let you infer the reasons...

>to hear the philosophical position stated without religious
>overtones and frippery.  

Is that like Robert Fripp-ery, or do you have something else in mind?

>But, Mr. Taylor, given your post about God
>being on the side of the protestors, 

Misinterpreted, I believe.  What I meant to communicate is that we will
certainly find out if the OR's are right about having God on their side.

>I suspect you are one for neither
>intelligent argument nor purely philosophical responses.  Good day.

Prejudice.  Pure and simple.  I love it.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "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: 12 Aug 92 18:16:49 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <IM1vr*+O0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <7101@lib.tmc.edu>, Jay Maynard writes:
>> >Are you really that dense?  I don't hate women.  I love babies.
>> I love babies too. Until it becomes a baby by being born, though, a fetus has
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^         
>How dense can you get?  A fetus is a baby.

Nope. Medically, legally, and at least in my moral system, it's not a baby
until it's born.
(This is an example of why morals should not be taught in the current public
school system: this question has no answer that does not go against someone's
moral values.)

>Yeah, some love.  You love the baby so much you want 1.5 million of them tortured
>to death by abortion.  Yeah, right.  Maybe you should hate them instead...

Nope, sorry, you won't hang that one on me. I don't want any pregnancies
terminated; in an ideal world that wouldn't be necessary. I accept, though,
that this is far from an ideal world.

>Why can't you abortionists see the obvious?  There is NOTHING at all wrong with
>the state executing convicted criminals in order to protect other citizens.  There
>is EVERYTHING wrong with killing an unborn child for convenience!  There is no
>contradiction here at all.

1) I am not an abortionist. I do believe that a woman has an absolute right to
terminate a pregnancy at any time and for any reason. That does not mean that
I have done, or will ever do, an abortion, and it certainly doesn't mean that
I'll ever have one!

2) The definition of murder is an illegal killing. Either you accept that
definition, and along with it that neither abortion nor capital punishment is
murder (the position I happen to take), or you reject the definition, and
accept that both abortion and capital punishment are murder. You can't have it
both ways.
-- 
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.
   "This is a network here, right?  How about giving a little thought to
            interoperability?" -- John F. Woods, to Brian Kantor
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Economic issues...
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:16:30 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <7138@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
[other post deleted...]
>
>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.
>-- 

Jay, we've had a democratic congress and a republican president for 12 years and I
haven't seen ONE instance where it helped control federal spending...Contrary to
the spin the republicans try to put on this, they are just as much into BIG GOVERNMENT
as the demos....all governments tax and spend, I've never seen one that didn't.
The real issue is what the money gets spent on......

On a different note, everyone take a look at the latest issue of Fortune magazine, not
exactly a centerpiece of the "liberal media." You will find an interesting article
comparing our economy to that of the other industrialize nations and some of the booming
almost industrialize countries. You will see that many countries have higher taxes than
we do, but their economies are doing vastly better. One can also see that we pay the
highest per capita for health care, but have the lowest life expectency and the highest
infant mortality rate......something is obviously wrong with our health care system....

My own view of what is wrong is that business is in one of its cycles where the cost of
labor is considered the primary thing to reduce. Hence, layoffs and job migration
to cheaper places. Of course, the other side of the coin is that workers are human capital
and must be trained and made more productive, sort of like the Japanese.....