HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Once More Into the Breach Dear Bush...
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:53:49 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper


Allow me to start by saying that I think George Bush should
be very careful about his 'narrow casting' or the implicaitons
will be MOST disagreeable. IF he presumes that Vets will some
how hear him talk to the VFW and then MISS his revision of his
comments on the National Debates, he must presume that we are
all Mere USMC triple-O-1-O's. { interservice Gambit... morally
Obligatory you know... If you don't Understand, STOP BREATHING
MY OXYGEN DRAFTBAIT!!!!! }

I find it MOST interesting that George is Convinced of the
Moral PURITY and Moral Absoluteness of the proposition
'it is wrong to demonstrate against your country abroad.'

This from the Gentleman who FINALLY has allowed 'vet' status,
and VA beni's to the Flying Tigers.

For those children who may not remember, these were the
'Brutal WarMongers' who were MURDERING Japanese PILOTS
while Our Country was Alledgedly NUETRAL in the Sino_Japanese War.

But I guess when one is 'out in front of the government...'
Its Sorta Ok...

Or On the Flip side, so that Folks do NOT presume that I am
PC, and presume that MURDERING ORIENTALS is More Morally Offensive
than MURDERING EuroCentrists... There is the 'Eagle Squadron' made
of Americans Who were MURDERING GERMANS, while our government was
Alledgedly NUETRAL in the AngloGerman Struggle. {kampf}

{So that we cover all of the Bases.... it is, though, amusing,
that the Abraham Lincoln and other 'Internationalist Brigades'
of the Spanish Civil War are STILL not consideres as the first
Veterans of WWII.... Probably because they were in opposition to
or then Staunch AntiCommunistAlly, the Great Generalisimo Franco
who was installed by Adolf and Benito.... }

So I guess it is a Matter of Whom One Offends during the
Political Campaign more than any MORAL ABSOLUTES?


ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: das@unislc.uucp (David Shorten)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:56:35 GMT

StarOwl (StarOwl@uiuc.edu) wrote:
: William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:
: 
: : That's the biggest reason why abortion should be banned. People are
: : *resources*, not "parasites" or "endless stomachs," as some of you on
: : the net have claimed. If you don't agree with that statement, throw
: : yourself off a roof right now -- human life is, in your opinion,
: : worthless.
: 
: Actually, I thought it had been demonstrated a few years back that human
: beings are really only worth $5 or $6...in raw materials.  :-)

Depends on how you part them out: you could probably get $10,000 for just
a good kidney alone.  Probably well into 6 figures for the whole thing. :)

: 
: --
: 
: Marrou/Lord in '92

Why not?  They couldn't possibly do any worse than any of the others running.

Dave S.  (das@unislc.uucp  -- I think.. they keep changing it on me..)
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Doctors Assisting Suicide
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:19:33 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <92283.030621KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <ld8ou7INNqrg@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM
>(Eric Marsh) says:

>>>>So, the fact that it is illegal is what makes it wrong?  Is there
>>>>anything deeper, Grasshopper?

>>>Besides absolute right and wrong, no.

>>No kidding? So how are these absolutes determined?

>No thanks, I don't feel like a flame war over the Bible.  The Bible presents
>a code of right and wrong, which most people around here refuse to accept or
>consider.

>Of course, given the disbelief in the Judeo-Christian God, that's a good
>question; how CAN one determine what absloute right and wrong are?

Perhaps one might conclude that there is no evidence of an absolute
right and wrong.

>------------
>Kurt Ludwick
>------------

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Brain Waves
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:03:19 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
>In <1992Oct13.233300.9875@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes ...
>>>I always had thought that brain activity was alot more than mere static.
>>>The suggestion that there is brain activity present even in an unborn fetus
>>>seems to offend people.
>
>>It doesn't offend much of anybody; are you really this stupid?  The
>>point is that brainwaves are worthless for determining personhood,
>>intelligence, or much of anything else.    ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>If you take the word "determine" too literally, that is correct.
>But they are good for establishing a presumption that consciousness
>COULD be present.

Which is also pretty much worthless.  Unless, that is, you are
proposing that all animals that have brainwaves also be presumed to
have some conciousness.

Are you a vegetarian?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
From: warren@pws.ma30.bull.com (Warren Lavallee)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Planned Parenthood on RU 486 "Morning After" Breakthrough
Date: 12 Oct 92 12:50:20 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In <1992Oct11.055932.13823@samba.oit.unc.edu> Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
>   Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the world's oldest and
>largest voluntary reproductive health care organization, is dedicated
>to the principle that every individual has a fundamental right to
>choose when or whether to have a child.
[...]
>nearly 5 million Americans each year, regardless of race, age,
>gender, sexual orientation, disability, or economic circumstances.
>Through its international program, Family Planning International
>Assistance, Planned Parenthood helps meet the family planning needs
>of women and men in the developing world.

Sounds good huh?  Look for a post tomorrow with some facts about the
accuracy of the above. 

After reading something like that one would have to feel foolish to be in
disagreement with such a pristine organiztrion as this.

Let's see if it's accurate.
--
Root out the cause, not the effects.                           Be | true
Do not distort the truth.                                       --+--
Pay attention.                                                    | Unbeliever
Work: warren@beloved.unidesk.com  Compu$erve: 76450,3463   answer | the call.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:32:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.052621.144287@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>> Are you trying to say that the mother will die if the baby is not aborted.
>> As I stated previously, I am not opposed to self defense.  And this case
>> would fall within the self defense doctrine.

> I'm saying there's a chance.  You just don't know, but if you wait until
> you know for sure, it might be too late.

Self-defense is only appropriate when a person faces an imminent and
immediate threat from an attacker.  You should know that by now.  


>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41560 talk.politics.guns:21925 alt.conspiracy:11093 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5154 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6542 soc.singles:27339
From: mister rogers <rogers@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Excuse Please, But ...?
X-Xxdate: Tue, 13 Oct 92 20:10:46 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:09:39 GMT

In article <1b7b8sINNm2s@spool.mu.edu> Jason Hanson,
jason@studsys.mscs.mu.edu writes:
>generally.  Most arguments that EXTREME to MODERATE
conservatives/republicans
>give are without logic.

as are most arguments that EXTREME to MODERATE liberals give ...
as are most posts in the groups this has been posted to.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: is overpeck everybody? (Re: The Keegan Rules (was: is overpeck everybody?) )
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:34:10 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->In <5k1z_gf@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
->   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
->wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
->In <Bvpr2K.M4I.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
->   (Susan Garvin) writes: >>>
->>>> I guess in Overpeck's twisted mind, this implies an ulterior 
->>>> motive.
->>
->>>Twisted mind?  Is that how you characterize people who don't
->>>share your particular set of values?
->>
->>she said, "in Overpeck's twisted mind," bill. that's a
->>specific reference to "Overpeck," which, in case you
->>didn't know, is you. unless you think "overpeck" is
->>also a group, that is.

->Sorry, Jim, I didn't realize that 

that's why i explained it to you.

->I keep forgetting 
->about your double standard with regard to net.cops.

you certainly do. but i understand the pressure you're
under. why don't you explain the criteria you measured
to develop your "double standard" label.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: Meet Ismail Elguindi, Abortionist
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 02:27:54 GMT

Steeves and Nyikos should be praying that this information is
true.  Nuisance suits beget other suits.

Nyikos posts a pamphlet by an O.R. affiliate, and expects us
all to believe it.  Right.  One of the doctors in Pittsburgh
who occasionally filled in at a clinic here has intimate
experience with this kind of thing.  A woman said that she
saw the doctor at his office for a gyne exam.  She claimed 
that he raped her.  Every one of his patients volunteered
to testify in his behalf.  He was acquitted.  The woman's
testimony was not credible - she changed her story several times.
Her regular OB/GYN testified that she'd had a gyne exam at
his office the month before the alleged rape occurred, and
that she had future appointments scheduled with him.  She
could not explain why she had gone to another doctor for
this exam.  It was not mentioned at the trial, but she is
a member of several right-to-lie groups here.  

Petey Honey seems to think that the ARC's phone number is
a secret.  It's printed on bumper stickers and signs, so
I'm not sure why he thinks it's private information.  If
you want to put more money in the pockets of some pro-force
lawyers, just call 1-800-634-2224 and commence lying.
(One of my favorite headlines in their newsletter is
"18 lawyers, woman file suit against abortionist" or
something like that.  18 lawyers?)

Susan






Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:37:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.162845.19579@samba.oit.unc.edu> Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.031307.17961@cfctech.cfc.com>,
>Kebbie (kevin@cfctech.cfc.com) writes:
>
>| Just out of curiosity, when has Keegan ever defended
>| YOU in an argument that he didn't help start, Suzanne?
>
>Well, my favorite such occasion was an infant-baptism
>argument that I'd started against Forgach.  Keegan posting on
>Catholic theology -- a t.a first, I suspect.

A farce.

>| Has it ever occurred to you that your "relationship" with 
>| Keegan is basically one-way: him being the parasite, and
>| you being the host?
>
>Gee.  I'll remind him of that next time he insists on 
>paying for dinner.

This isn't about dinner, Suzanne, this is about folks sucking up to other 
folks so that they'll rush to their defense each and every time they get to 
their necks in net.poo-poo. How many times will you attempt to pull him out 
before realizing "this really stinks"??

If Keegan is such a knight in shining armor, why does he constantly need
your help all the time? Can't he fight his own battles?

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: mikepb@lupus.dell.com (Michael P. Brininstool)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Reply-To: mikepb@lupus.dell.com
Organization: Dell UNIX Support
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:32:22 GMT

In article <Bvv752.Ltw@creare.com>, inb@creare.com (Ian Brown) writes:
|> WRT economic plans: if nothing else, Clinton offers a change from the past
|> 12 years, during which the economy, following Reagan's and Bush's trickle
|> down idea, has gone to hell in a hand basket (to borrow a cliche'.)  The
|> gap between the richest people and the poorest has gotten bigger, big
|> enough that the richest 1% of the population now has more money than the
|> poorest 90%.

I would like some figures about the economy going to hell in a handbasket.
The figures used by the liberal democrats to prove that Nixon/Ford were
screwing things up show that the worst economic period in the last 50 years,
were the 4 years during which that damn peanut farmer was the president.
Those same figures, and the misery index (sum of unemployment rate and
inflation rate), showed Carter's administration the worst at 20+% and the
lowest two, in the last 50 years, were Reagan's two administrations at 8 or
9%, I can't remember the exact figures.  The list had 11 administrations on
the list.  Reagan was 1 & 2, Bush was 5, Carter was 11!  The current liberal
democrats running for the presidency are saying that the last 12 years are
the worst in recent history.  What do they mean by worst.  Liberal ideas were
being proved wrong?  The "screwing of the middle class" as they put it, has
been very good to me.  They say that middleclass income has decreased while
taxes increased during the same period.  In the last twelve years my income
has more than doubled, my tax rate has gone down, though the actual amount
of taxes has gone up.  The only time my tax RATE went up was after the
1990 tax increases when Bush mistakenly went along with the liberal
democratic ideals.  Isn't it strange that the recent economic slump is
nearly directly coincidental with that tax increase.  Bush claims he was
trying to get along with the liberal congress and he now says that was a
mistake.  I agree.  As far as I am concerned, there should be a flat tax.
That is the only fair way to do it.  Because a person makes more they
should pay more?  If that is the attitude, why not let their votes be
weighted by the amount of taxes they pay?  After all, they have the most
invested!

------------------------------++----------------------------------------------|
| #include "std/disclaimer.h" || MICHAEL P. BRININSTOOL mikepb@lupus.dell.com |
|-----------------------------++--------++------------------------------------|
| IF LIBERALS INTERPRETED THE 2ND       || "An armed society is a polite      |
| AMENDMENT, THE WAY THEY DO THE FIRST, ||  society!"  -- Heinlein            |
| CARRYING A GUN WOULD BE MANDATORY!    ||                                    |
|---------------------------------------++-------------------------------------
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:26:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom San Jose

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes ...
>Listen to Rush's show and you may learn that in schools where those 
>were done (the object that Rush used was a school that was a pilot for 
>those programs) the pregnancy rate skyrocketted.

Bull.  100% pure grade A distilled.

Rush has obviously no commitment to telling the truth - why should I
give a flaming rat's ass _what_ he has to say?

>p.s. This summer I posted a four-page, annotated report which showed 
>that the many sex-ed programs are not teaching anything like what 
>most people think they are.  They are teaching deviance like sex with 
>animals and legal, honorable prostitution.  Are those the things that 
>you want taught in public schools?

I thought that's what Rush was teaching?  Are you sure you aren't
confused?

In fact, those countries that have thorough and complete sex
education, ready access to contraceptives, and a less screwed-up
attitude towards sex not only have fewer abortions and fewer teen
pregnancies, but also manage to have fewer teens experimenting with
sex.  The notion that sex-ed is immoral and teaches kids to have sex
is one of the most trecherous lies the pseudo-moral prudes have ever
inflicted upon this society.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:17:51 GMT

In article <BvqAu6.AwA@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
 
>In <Bvq88E.9B@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
>
>>A woman's rights with regards to abortion are protected by the Fourth
>>Amendment.  An unborn child's rights with regards to abortion
>>may be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  If that is the
>>case, then it becomes a question of whose rights take precidence --
>>the born person's or the unborn person's?
>
>        Which could also boil down to:
>Which is more important, right to privacy, or right to live. I certainly
>can't think of any other case where you are justified in killing someone
>because they have "invaded your privacy".
>
>                Bruce
 
Isn't that why people keep guns in their homes?  To shoot burglars for
invading their privacy?
 
(insert .5 smiley here)
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: waw0026@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Reply-To: waw0026@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:45:58 GMT

In article <1bemelINN963@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, rainbow@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Jennifer Lynn Hammond) writes:
>
>In article <waddell.718966184@willow.cs.scarolina.edu> waddell@cs.scarolina.edu (Jeff Waddell) writes:
>>>Whether the fetus is viable or non-viable is not the question.  The question,
>>>bottom line, comes down to a fetus has a right to life since it's stated
>>>in the Bill of Rights that this right to life exists.  The corrolary to 
>>>that is whether the fetus should be allowed to develope with the basis being
>>>this right to life or do we ignore the inenvitable result - that of human
>>>being
>--------------
>There has never been any precendent set down that a fetus is a
>human being. Even in common law which serves us in the US as
>well, suits for pain and suffering over a lost fetus is entreated
>for the woman and not for some fetus. It only serves to mitigate
>murder and does not add charges of captal murder. And there is
>nothing in the bill of rights that mentions a fetus. In fact the
>laws are always written in a manner to describe a "born child", a
>minor, or a "born human being", and not a fetus. I think you sit
>around and make this crap up. The shit you spout with no regard
>for truth is amazing.
>-Steve
>
Well, shucks, as long as everybody's as interested in reasonable dialogue as
you are, we should be fairly close to actually talking to each other about this
in no time.  Very, very helpful.

Bill Welsh
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:30:09 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <26128@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>tes:
>>In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>>In article <26081@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) w
>ri
>They wouldn't propose a theory they knew was not correct.

They proposed theories they thought were correct. And that is how they
were worded, too. "I think" or the like. That is, after all, what theory
means.

>just because one person or a few people have another study out contradicting
>the painstaking and long and arduous work into studying this phenomenon
>doesn't make the other scientists who ahve studied this and researched this
>take back their statements.  Sometimes, it isn't necessary.

Let's see, we still use Newton's theories of time and space to calculate
many things, although we know that some of them are incorrect. We also
know that Einstein's theory of relativity has short-comings, yet we
still use those for more accurate approximations than Newton's. It appears
that Einstein was closer with Quantum Physics, but he himself disliked
that theory so much, I believe he said that if the world revolved around
Quantum Physics, then the world makes no sense. Well, it appears the
world does revolve around Quantum Physics, or relatively clse to it,
and it still makes sense.

These were reputable scientists, in some cases reporting findings which
went directly against what they believed. The studies which you have
cited (at least I think it was you that cited some pro-life stuff) or
at least read was performed by biased "scientists" with an agenda to
prove. Their studies are suspect, esp as they prove what they wanted,
and there are other studies done by reputable scientists that directly
disprove them. There are even studies done by scientists with pro-life
leanings that disprove them. (Witness Koop's report) So the conclusion
is that those studies are incorrect, flawed, or otherwise tainted.

>If something is wrong, it is not judicious to make it appear right.  If
>something is right, there is no reason to claim that it is wrong.

The first sentence makes no sense to me. The second I agree with. Too
bad it doesn't apply to your position and the first does.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA