HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 29 Aug 92 21:12:26 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <BtnIEB.6q1@rice.edu>
evan@is.rice.edu (Evan R. Wetstone) writes:
 
>Ahh, but you see, the religious right favors freedom of religion, as
>long as it's theirs.
 
        They need freedom of religion or else their beliefs become
harder to live-up-to.   (tho most of them would still try;  and have)
 
>                      They favor "family values", as long as those
>values are representative of *their* families.
 
        They need those family values because private school is expensive.
 
>                    Listen to George Bush, who mentioned our
>"Judeo-Christian heritage" in his acceptance speech,   ...
 
        And I've heard that that phrase is offensive to many Jews.
Sorry about that;  I've used it myself.   But it turns out that either
some Jews either don't believe their own scriptures or I have a bad copy.
So I'll try to remember to leave the  "Judeo-"  off in hopes that I
don't seem to speak for Jews.
 
>George should study American history; the nation's heritage is based
>upon escaping religious persecution and State sanctioned religions.
>The religious right would have America back in those situations which
>our ancestors fought to escape.
 
        No.   That's not at all correct.   The  "religious right"
has much the same theology and ideology as the  "founding fathers".
The latter is weakening because the schools don't teash history like
they used to.   (actually,  both are weakening because churches don't
teach theology like they used to)
 
Rick Troth <TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>, Rice University, I/S VM Systems Support
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice C
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:38:58 GMT

In <Rs93PB1w165w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:

>JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett) writes:

>> In article <ggkXPB5w165w@keys.lonestar.org>
>> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>>  
>> >Go review the guiding philosophy of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned
>> >Parenthood.  One of the fundamental reasons she founded the organization was
>> >because she hated the poor (and the minorities) who kept having children.
>> >She wanted those vermin to stop having kids.  Lorra might not personally
>> >hold the same belief, but at least one significant leader in her camp did.
>>  
>> Yeah, and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson kept slaves. What's your
>> point?

>My point was that her philosophy still has had significant affect upon the
>direction of Planned Parent hood even to this day.  Washington's and
>Jefferson's philosophies of slave ownership wasn't their major influence on
>American politics.  (Hmm.. or perhaps one could argue that it did, and that
>it reinforced an evil which took a civil war to excise.  In which case, it
>supports my point about Sanger.)

I've heard this claim before.  Could you, perhaps, provide some
evidence for Sanger's views (which you misrepresented) or for this new
contention?  How, pray tell, has "her philosophy still has had
significant affect [sic] upon the direction of Planned Parent hood
[sic] even to this day"?

[I'm wondering if this issue was raised by some conservative writer
somewhere recently, since this is not the first time I've heard this
asserted recently.]


-- 
"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: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 00:09:46 GMT
 <1992Aug20.000853.12407@cactus.org> <1992Aug20.144033.2939@menudo.uh.edu> <exuptr.375.714354030@exu.ericsson.se>
 <1684AFF82.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> <exuptr.173.71Organization <1685314B1.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1685314B1.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>, Joseph L. Lockett writes:

> Yes it can.  A child is like a cancer -- a lump of your cells turned
> against yourself.  It derives from your cells, feeds off your body,
> takes oxygen and other supplies from your body.  If you want to let
> it grow and be born, and then support it yourself, then bravo.  If you
> don't or can't, then it's within your rights to get rid of it.

Wow, it is hard to believe that anyone would write such an abomination!  Since
when can a cancer grow up to be a normal, separate human being?

It is too bad that Slick Willie hasn't said that publicly.  That would end his
political career immediately!


[...]
> Yes, if it's not done with careful thought and sufficient knowledge.  Much
> of the furor over homosexuality derives from a mistranslation in the King
> James Bible -- 'sexual aberrancy', or some such, was translated by zealous
> clerics as 'homosexuality', so while it really should have applies to rape
> and such crimes, today we get crusading gay-bashers and such.  (I support
> gay rights, in case you couldn't tell.  Does that make me completely
> irredeemable? (-: )  And if you start holding up some of the strictures
> from the Old Testament, then you'd better start explaining why you've

It makes you very (willfully?) ignorant of the Bible.  The ban on homosexuality
is explicitly mentioned many times in many different ways in both the Old and New
Testaments.  There is no possible way that a single translation error could
produce what you claim.  You really ought to read the Bible.  Then you would know
what it really says.  (By the way, the KJV is still the best English translation.)

[...]

> >>An example -- Jewish religious law REQUIRES an abortion in cases where

Note:  Rabbinical lore is NOT the Bible.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: paco@cs.rice.edu (Paul Havlak)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Sanger (was Re: Anti-Choice vs. Pro-Abortion)
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:28:39 GMT
	<16851CB7C.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
Reply-To: Paul Havlak <paco@cs.rice.edu>
Organization: Center for Research on Parallel Computations

In article <16851CB7C.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett) writes:
>Fine, Sanger may have been a eugenicist (I will listen with interest
>to a man who dares to contradict the New York Times (-: ).  ...

    I posted the original reference to the NYT Book Review on this
thread.  There's no serious argument that Sanger freely sought the
support of eugenicists and argued for birth control as a eugenics
measure.  There is some question from her biographer of whether she
was really believed in eugenics or was pandering to the slime for the
benefit of women's reproductive rights.

    I agree with Mr. Lockett that Sanger's views are not necessarily
relevant to Planned Parenthood today.
    Modern Planned Parenthood supports overall reproductive health and
freedom, not just birth control.  The recent flurry of attention and
fund-raising regarding abortion rights is mainly due to the attack
from the right.

    *Maybe* if Bush loses, abortion will be less controversial and we
can see more attention paid to pre/peri/post-natal health care and
nutrition to help those children who are wanted grow up to live
healthy and productive lives.

--paco
--
Paul Havlak			Dept. of Computer Science
Graduate Student		Rice University, Houston TX 77251-1892
PFC/ParaScope projects		(713) 527-8101 x2738 	paco@cs.rice.edu
From: siddarth@cs.utexas.edu (Siddarth Subramanian)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-Choice
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:51:09 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: deimos.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Aug29.025524.6332@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell) writes:
>3) Population control in other countries has gotten a bad rep, and the
>administration wants to distance itself from things like India's
>mandatory sterlization program (even if the US is not directly
>involved).

Hmm. Do you have any references on this alleged mandatory
sterilization program? The only one I know of was a secret program
during the Emergency era in the 70's which, when it surfaced, was one
of the main reasons for the collapse of Indira Gandhi's government in
the 1977 elections. I don't think anyone has tried anything like that
since then.

Maybe you meant China?

-- 

Siddarth Subramanian          INTERNET: siddarth@cs.utexas.edu
Austin, Texas                 UUCP:     uunet!cs.utexas.edu!siddarth
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice C
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:15:32 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <LH47PB2w165w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:

>I've quoted sources showing under what philosophy Sanger organized Planned
>Parenthood.  It's in your ballpark to refute it. A "philosophy of hate for
>the poor" translates exactly into 'providing services' targeted to the poor
>with the intent of causing those people to limit their progeny.  "Get a
>grip."

I guess this is where the disagreement comes.  For example, I don't
particularly hate people with sickle-cell, but I think it's a really
good idea if people carrying the gene don't have children together.
Why must a belief in eugenics spring from "hate"?


-- 
"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: troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:48:25 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <1685314B1.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett) writes:
 
>                                                                Much
>of the furor over homosexuality derives from a mistranslation in the
>King James Bible -- 'sexual aberrancy', or some such, was translated
>by zealous clerics as 'homosexuality', so while it really should have
>applies to rape and such crimes,   ...
 
        No,  it's  "homosexuality".   It's spelled out in hard-to-
mistranslate wording in Romans ch1 v27.   The balance is found in
the first part of John ch8.   Leviticus ch18 v22 is also pretty hard
to mistranslate.
 
>                             (You see, I used to be a fairly devout
>Episcopalian, until it seemed to get in the way of good sense....)
 
        That's interesting.   I should put you in touch with my
Assembly-of-God--turned--Episcopalian friend.   He entered that
denomination,  among other reasons,  because he likes to  "think".
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Subject: Re: Condom Discussion
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 03:13:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.173352.3184@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>Someone said:  "Passing out condoms encourages their use."
>
>	What's wrong with that?  Condoms may not be perfect, but 
>they do help with some of the negative effects of sexual activity
>(disease and pregnancy).  Until somebody figures out how to reduce
>sexual activity (other than getting married), we just do what 
>we can.
>

What about the instances when condoms do fail?  They were supposed to
stop things like AIDS and 'unwanted pregancy' but now we are stuck with
the consequence of some our actions.  

And in order to 'solve' the 'unwanted consequences' of our actions, we have
to resort to some very ugly things like abortion, for example.
From: elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Teachers
Date: 30 Aug 92 13:21:12 GMT
Organization: Eric's Amiga 2000 @ Home

From article <4XUAr*KU0@caleb.UUCP>, by jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett):
> In article <1992Aug29.171000.11814@seas.smu.edu>, David Leon writes:
>> Judging from what I've seen here, it would follow that if the private school
>> were significantly smaller than its public counterpart, the administration
>> costs should be significantly reduced. (ie it costs less money per student
>> to administer a public school with 4,000 and 100 teachers than a private
>> school with 500 students and 20 teachers--the overhead changes)  This was
>
> Logically, it should work exactly the opposite way.  In business, they call it
> the... (oops, memory fault - core dump...)  Anyway, you should be able to REDUCE
> the per student cost when the number of students is increased.  Of course, the
> government can never do anything efficiently...

*NOT!*. A small business with two employees has *MUCH* lower administrative
overhead than a large business with 1,000 employees -- basically, ***0***
(since the owner himself works, and there is no full-time administrator).

In addition, large businesses get economies of scale through extensive
computerization of administrative functions. The general public refuses to
buy reasonable administrative computer systems for school systems. "Oh,
you're still running an IBM 370 from 1971? That's good enough! Anything
else would be a waste of money!". Sheesh.

-- Eric
--
 Eric Lee Green  elg@elgamy.sccsi.com         Dodson Elementary
 (713) 437-6908  uunet!nuchat!elgamy!elg      Houston, TX
                "Kids are kids, no matter what"
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 30 Aug 92 05:05:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <dpEAr*vU0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.033348.26856@pony.Ingres.COM>, QUOTE OF THE YEAR writes:
>
>> I just noticed something. This whole election the Republicans have blamed
>> Congress for the deficit and the recession, Bush was just along for the 
>> ride. During the 80's, the growth we had was caused by Reagan. Why doesn't
>> Congress get credit for that? After all, if someone is going to flack
>
>Probably because Reagan dragged the liberals (kicking and screaming) all the
>way to the tax cuts.  The tax cuts are what made the economy boom.
>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[other stuff deleted]
My answer to this is bullshit. What made the economy "boom" as you put it
was massive government spending, particularly defense spending. Almost
everyone I know is employed via government spending, either directly
or indirectly. The last job I had that was strictly private enterprise
was in 1977...
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan M Kossack)
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs John F. Haugh II
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Organization: A Glorified, Overheated Swamp
Distribution: tx
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 19:37:41 GMT

In article <21433@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
|> The 1st Amendment to the Constitution provides that a person may assemble
|> peaceable to protest.  The "defenders" are attacking OR based solely on
|> the topic of OR's protest.  

	Yeah.  And the people jeering at the Klan during the Economic
   Summit were "attacking" the KKK based solely on the topic of the 
   Klan's viewpoints.  As long as there were no physical confrontations, 
   each side was exercising their First Amendment rights to peaceably 
   assemble and of free speech.  How did the OR protests during the 
   RNC differ from the protests/parades during the Economic Summit? 

|>                             Since the state is always within its legal
|> bounds when it enforces the trespassing laws, the mechanism for
|> "protecting" the clinics has always existed.  Therefore, what the
|> defenders are doing is NOT protecting a legal right to perform an abortion,
|> but rather VIOLATING the legal right of the protestors to peaceably
|> assemble.  Here, read this, because you obviously never have -

	How?  Please explain.  The so-called clinic defenders did not
   prevent OR from exercising their right to assemble.  Right or wrong,
   there was a court order in effect.  Preventing OR from violating a
   court order can hardly be called a civil rights violation any more
   than airport security & magnetometers violate your RKBA. 

 
|> As for calling Tony a liar, he deserved it.  Protecting oneself against
|> an illegal act isn't a crime.  If the OR members are being prevented
|> from exercising their 1st Amendment rights, and I believe that they are,
|> any "violence" they dish out is called ``self-defense''.  However, as I

	What about the First Amendment rights of the folk who desire to 
   keep abortion legal?  If they are at the clinic first (which seems to 
   be the case from folk I've talked to) then they have the priviledge 
   of getting first choice of a spot to demonstrate.  When the OR folk 
   physically assault (without _physical_ provocation) the folk already 
   present, one can hardly call such an attack defensive in nature. 


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack   |   "To use taxes to cure a deficit is like using 
 kossack@rice.edu   |    leeches to cure anemia."    -- Ronald Reagan 
  +1 713 240 2073   |   "Voodoo Economics!"            -- George Bush
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:24:21 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Aug27.203014.24123@seas.smu.edu> dleon@seas.smu.edu (David Leon) writes:
>Something to note: if Pro-Lifers are so worried about the sensation of pain
>that the fetus allegedly feels, why are they (Pro-Lifers) so adamant about
>banning orally induced abortions (RU486 and Morning After)?  If the Pro-
>Lifers truly stood by their stance that abortion is wrong because it is
>torturous, and the other method of abortion (oral) is not torturous, why are
>they trying so hard to keep RU486 out of this country?

The fetus still dies.  Usually the fetus is delivered, alive, into the
toilet, a bucket, or plopped out onto the floor.  It will then flop about
for a few minutes until it is dead.

I forget who it was, but someone posted a note about late term abortions
where the child is delivered after the woman is injected with prostaglandins
(I think that's what it was ...), and then the kid - quite alive at this
point - is tossed into a pile of rags where it dies from suffocation.

Every day in this country babies are being aborted and survive, only to be
killed by the abortionist.  RU486 will increase the number of cases where
this occurs.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 21:49:07 GMT
 <bVcBr*rV0@caleb.UUCP> <17tv1dINN9pm@agate.berkeley.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <17tv1dINN9pm@agate.berkeley.edu>, Andrew J. Lazarus writes:

> In article <bVcBr*rV0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> 
> >I'm telling you again.  The deficit is MUCH LOWER than it would have been
> >if a Democrat had been President!
> 
> This "argument" is as impossible to refute as "The Chicago Cubs would
> have won the World Series if a Democrat had been President", but in view
> of the fact that Jimmy Carter's deficits weregenerally much LOWER than
> Reagan's and Bush's, could you explain again slowly why your claim is
> plausible in the least?

Just look at all the spending bills that didn't get passed because of the President's
veto, or threat thereof.

 
> >I agree that the deficit should be eliminated immediately.  The ONLY way to do
> >that is by cutting spending - anathema to the Democrats (and they are the folks
> >who control Congress.)
> 
> I am still looking forward to your list of where to cut spending and by
> how much. Incidentally, you do recall that the GOP had control of the
> Senate for 6 of those high-spending years and a working majority in the
> House (counting conservative Democrats) for some of that, don't you?

That so-called "working majority" only worked part of the time.  There were many
"party line" issues where many of the conservative Democrats voted with the
liberal House leadership.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you
Date: 30 Aug 92 23:16:33 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <21430@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> No, the facts DO support this.  The police violence against OR has been
> very well documented in the popular press.  Articles have included the
 
We can argue all day about whether or not it's been well documented.
 
The fact is, you are in the silly position of arguing that if the
press didn't capture the violence, it didn't happen, therefore the
people who were there are liars.  Don't you think that's a little
flimsy, especially when you are questioning the character of people you
don't even know?
 
I could just as well argue that the press always goes out of it's way
to report on police violence, and therefore if there had been any violence
against OR it would be reported in the media.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com