HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: boyd@turtle.fisher.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life vs. Anti-Abortion (Re: fetus vs. baby)
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:08:02 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Fisher Controls International, Austin, TX

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?

--
Tom Boyd     (512)832-3611             "She looked fluffy,
boyd@turtle.fisher.com                       but she struck like a cobra!"
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:36:19 GMT

In <1992Aug18.215442.16953@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:

>In article <21384@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug17.153324.9399@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>In <21377@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>>>Well, Jeanette is now about 4 months pregnant.
>>>Hey, congratulations.
>> Fuck you.

>	Did I miss something?  Unfortunately, it reminds me of the scene from
>"The Naken Gun 2-1/2"

>	Drebin:	"Hey I hear your wife pregnant. Congratulations!"
>	<forget name>: "And if I ever catch the guy..."

Yeah, I kind of wondered if I'd missed something, too, since I'd
assumed that John considered this a Good Thing.  I guess, though, that
I can't be *too* surprised, given the tone and style of much of
everything else that he's posted.


-- 
"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: fetus vs. baby
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 23:51:24 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <21363@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
 
|> [irrelevant probability essay deleted]
|>
|> It is UNREASONABLE to claim that some magical property exists which would
|> cause an unmarried women to become pregnant when no factor other than her
|> marital status distinguishers her from her married counterpart.  This
|> isn't just Haugh Logic.

There's no logic in there at all.  The issue is illegitimate birth. 
Whether she's married or not has EVERYTHING to do with whether the
baby is illegitimate.

|> About a dozen.  Not being a scientific poll, the margin of error is
|> +/- 100%.  Again, you have yet to produce the 35% population group that
|> you claim was getting married right after the woman got pregnant.

Huh?  I never said 35%.  I don't know what the number is, but I have
been looking.

|> Duh.  If they aren't having sex, they aren't having sex.  But just so
|> you are happy, 78% are STILL VIRGINS.

WHERE DID YOU GET THIS NUMBER?  It's wrong.  The correct figure is
around 59% according to several studies that I have cited.  Put up or
shut up.

|> The article dealt with the need for school students to be taught
|> "sex ed" and the like and was discussing how sexually active "school
|> children" are.

I suspect without knowing anymore about the article that they were
talking about children who had sex regularly.  This would jibe with
the number I have seen elsewhere.  

|> But the simple fact remains - "teenage" sex is not as common or as
|> frequent as you make it out to be.  Even if 53% of 18 year olds have
|> had sex, 47% haven't, and it is axiomatic that one year earlier, no
|> more than 53% were.  Eventually that number must reach zero.  Those
|> of us that understand numerical integration know that the sum of the
|> area under that line is often less than any single largest value
|> times the length of that line.

AAAARGH.  The 53% IS the area under the line.

|> >Let me see if I have this straight.  You honestly believe that
|> >masturbation causes blindness and baldness?
|> 
|> Of course.  I've seen your hairline, and I happen to know that your
|> eyeglass perscription is worse than mine.  QED.

It's the effects of age, I'm afraid, or I would've been bald and blind
20 years ago.  How do you know my glasses prescription anyway?  *I* 
don't even know what it is.  And I didn't go to Jeanette's employer to 
get it either.  Wasn't I wearing my contacts the day we went to Chuy's?

-- 
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: 14 Aug 92 17:30:43 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

> 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).
 
A trend?  How many people were involved in this trend?  Are you sure
it wasn't just an idea mentioned in an article or a book?
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4252 alt.politics.clinton:2397
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Trade Imbalance
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:37:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <mx#n9ma.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>Well I have told you all who is behiving like Hitler: it is Clinton
>and all of you are behaving like the Brownshirts and Hitler youth in 
>you blind following the pied piper.

	Har. Har-har-har-har. Ha-ha-ha-Ha-ha-ha-ha-Ha. Yuk, yuk, yuk.
You may not have meant for this to be funny, but it's killing me! Great
post!


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:21:30 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <IM1vr*+O0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>How dense can you get?  A fetus is a baby.

How dense can YOU get?  An embryo is an embryo (not a baby).  A foetus
is a foetus (not a baby).

>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...

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).

>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.

First, I'm not an abortionist (one who performs abortions).  I'd have
to be a doctor to be that.  Secondly, why do you feel you can kill
something that is INDISPUTABLY a human being (the convicted criminal)
for the sake of convenience, so that you don't have to keep them
locked up?

Why is it that you can't see the conflict in the claim of being
'pro-life' and advocating a DEATH penalty (as opposed to a life
without parole penalty)?


-- 
"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,rice.bizarre
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Followup-To: rice.bizarre
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: houston
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 03:55:15 GMT

In article <zt1vr*YO0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
- Slavery is irrelevant.
- 
- ECL is irrelevant.

	You will service the Borg.  

-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  
 kossack@rice.edu  |  "That's not a crime--crimes have victims."   
  +1 713 240 2073  |     -- rsl@well.sf.ca.us (Roy Stuart Levin)
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Parasite Revisited
Date: 17 Aug 92 12:57:02 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>If you don't pay your taxes, they take you to jail, so your physical body
>is hostage, legally speaking.  

and if u don't go 2 jail, (try to resist by force, like holing up in your
house w/ a shotgun,) they won't leave u alone, they'll shoot u.

u have a choice
either pay for that welfare system u hate, 
	(or defense system if u're a liberal)
or die.
-- 
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
FICA is a massive wealth transfer from young middle class to old middle class.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: marvin@skinner.dsg.ti.com (Marvin Heffler)
Subject: 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 15:36:17 GMT

In article <qFlxr*IQ0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
|>In article <1992Aug13.102724.16941@montagar.com>, David L. Cathey writes:
|>
|>> 	If you really want to limit abortions, you have GOT to provide
|>> sex education for children once they start to reach child-bearing age.
|>> You need to provide birth control to those that want it.  I don't mind
|>> encouraging abstinence until they are out of school, but you CAN"T make
|>> them feel ashamed or resentful, or they will just have sex unprotected.
|>
|>The data shows that since sex education in the schools started, teen
pregnancies
|>increased dramatically.  Since condoms began being distributed in the
schools,
|>teen pregnancies have soared even higher.
|>

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. 

|>
|>                                                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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 16:39:59 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <zt1vr*YO0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
|> Fact:  convenience abortion was illegal in most states.  Then a certain woman
|> in Dallas committed deliberate perjury telling the courts that she was raped
|> in order to get sympathy so that she could get the law overturned.  The stupid
|> judges fell for it.  They invented the 'right to abortion' via a rather warped
|> perversion (interpretation) of the Constitution.

$ grep -i rape roe.v.wade
$ 

There was no mention of rape in the Roe v. Wade opinion.

-- 
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: So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:02:25 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Aug18.142635.7720@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>Now what the hell was THAT for?

Because you are an asshole.

You come into this newsgroup, bragging about your degrees.

Then you write a bunch of nonsense that you refuse to support with any
verifiable references.  You've been asked countless times to back up
your economic claims as well as your claims about human embryology.

You don't ever provide any support whatsoever, but you do provide plenty
of insults.  I keep a stack of books and magazines right next to my desk
and have spent significant amounts of time READING those books and
magazines only to have you tell me I'm lying when I copy something from
one of them.

You are worse than Joe Mullany.  He doesn't read things because he is
too lazy to call the library and see if they actually have a reference
work I cite.  You flat out refuse to read, period.
-- 
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."
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: fetus vs. baby
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:08:50 GMT

In <21375@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Aug13.102724.16941@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
>>	Okay, birth control wasn't as effective 40 years ago.  But the only
>>real effectiveness of any birth control is USAGE.  What is the availablility
>>for birth control among teens?  What is the availability of accurate sex 
>>information that they receive?  In general, it was probably better then...
>>Families would sit down and talk to the children, now both parents work (if
>>there are two parents), and there just isn't time.

>No, it was probably worse back then.  And education has nothing to do
>with it.  Only a terminally stupid 16 year old girl doesn't know that
>sex can result in pregnancy.  I remember asking my mother about
>menstration 25 years ago.  I think that was the last discussion about
>sex that her and I ever had (I'm 30 now, so you figure it out ...)

Well, that explains a LOT.  I think Dave is right.  There is a bit
more to know about sex than 'it may make you pregnant'.  Sounds like
you need to go back and have that talk with your mother.

>When asked why they had gotten pregnant, one group of women responded
>that they wanted to prove to their parents that they could accomplish
>something.

What 'group', pray tell, and could we have the percentage of this
'group' that answered that way and how the 'group' was selected in the
first place?

>That doesn't sound like not being informed.

No, it sounds like more the usual 'selected statistics' Haugh Gwash,
like your contention that 12 answers constituted meaningful
information. 

>>	If you really want to limit abortions, you have GOT to provide
>>sex education for children once they start to reach child-bearing age.
>>You need to provide birth control to those that want it.  I don't mind
>>encouraging abstinence until they are out of school, but you CAN"T make
>>them feel ashamed or resentful, or they will just have sex unprotected.

>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.

No, 40 years ago you bought them in gas stations out of vending
machines or at the pharmacy.

[Just for your general information, 'birth control' goes clear back to
the ancient Romans, at least.]


-- 
"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: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: fetus vs. baby
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:17:42 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <lK1vr*ZO0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <7099@lib.tmc.edu>, Jay Maynard writes:
>> What babies?
>The ones that you want to kill before they are born.

Sorry. If it isn't born yet, it's not a baby. It's that simple.

-- 
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: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Governor
Date: 22 Aug 92 22:25:33 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry) writes:

> 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".

I accept the correction that my assertion was wrong.  It was not, however, a
_lie_ because I did not make my assertion while knowing that it was untrue. 
I suggest you read carefully before accusing another of lying.

I still think Richards will change her tune.

> 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 increased school funding is not producing a better educational system;
it is wasting money.  The increased state spending on horsetracks (via less
tax income) means less income for the state (you _do_ remember that it was
sold to the electorate as a good source of income, don't you?).  Voters
accepted the horsetrack deal partially because of the promised tax rate on
such activity.

> The fact that you are in a minority.  Governor Richards is extremely 
> popular.

Well, that certainly seems to be a true statement.

> My only concern about Governor Richards is the chance 
> Texas will lose her to a national office.

God help us if "good ol' boy" Richards makes it to national office!

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: hen3ry@cactus.org (Henry Velick)
Subject: Re: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life vs. Anti-Abortion (Re: fetus vs. baby)
Organization: Only When Necessary
Distribution: tx
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 05:00:58 GMT

In article <T51iPB2w164w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>
>> There's nothing particularly special about human life.  This is a
>> harsh cruel world we live in.  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.
>
>Interesting...I think I'd say that moral and ethical is derived from
>religious beliefs. But rather than believing that human life is
>"nothing...special", I find it more plausible to believe that it is
>special. The vast majority of human societies (perhaps all of them) have
>defined a "moral and ethical fabric of society" for themselves.  Which
>means that the vast, vast majority of people are "religious" in some
>sense, and that it is totally natural for them to reflect their beliefs
>in their laws.  Secondarily, the fact that so many people _are_
>religious might be evidence that their _is_ something supernatural,
>outside of all of us.  I think your viewpoint, John, is very much the
>minority.
>

Sure, human life is special. To humans. How many other species would
agree? The results aren't in yet on the supernatural question, but even
if there is something out there, what makes you so sure that humanity
is the apple of its eye?




-- 
\-- Henry Velick   \  Millions long for immortality, who don't know what   \
 \-- Datalingus     \  to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.   \
  \-- Austin, Texas  \ -----------------------------------      Susan Ertz   \
   \-- 512-459-5770   \ Purveyors of Fine Graphics Software and Consultation  \
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Tax suggestion
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:31:40 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

I'd like to see this tax idea put into practice:

For the SS part of FICA (Medicare is another issue) do these things:

a) Do not penalize those who work to suppliment their social security.
After all, they do pay taxes and perhaps have some health coverage from their
jobs. Why should someone who makes $100K/year from investments not be
penalized when someone who WORKS is?
b) If you do earn more than say, $100K/year from investments or whatever
and do not have any earned income, then no social security check at all.
Why would you need it?
c) Gradually phase in a FICA credit for those who put a certain amount
into IRAs or other retirement plans. This would start a transition away
from using the SS system to bailout the rest of teh federal deficit....
d) Finally, institute a lower FICA tax (say 2%) on ALL income (not just the
1st $55K) that would provide benefits to those who are unable to work
or never had a job where they could pay into IRAs or whatever.


WHat do you all think?
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:46:58 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Aug19.213635.26048@mercury.unt.edu> ian@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Ian Parberry) writes:
>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.

	If he continues to post here, it won't have been on purpose,
but because it's so darn FUN. That's my opinion, and I hope he stays.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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"