HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:02:21 GMT

In article <1053@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.161223.24601@ugle.unit.no> leifmk@Lise.Unit.NO
>(Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y) writes:
>>That's your opinions.  If there has turned up any solid evidence that a
>>partially developed fetus (like 12 weeks or less) is conscious and aware,
>>then I would agree that it is indeed a child.  Otherwise, my fine friend,
>>your posting is a prime example of fascist bullshit.
>>
>>Personally, I don't believe a fetus should be called a child, not until it
>>is developed enough to survive outside the womb.
>
>If you are going to argue about words, you ought to at least look them
>up.

And you should follow your own advice (and post your source if handy).
According to my _American Heritage Dictionary_ which came w/my desk, a
child (n): 1) a person between birth and puberty, 2) a son or daughter,
3) an immature person.

A person is a (n): 1) a human being, 2) the living body of a human
being, (some other definitions dealing w/grammar).

Your only hope is that child is a person and for that you'd need to
show that a fetus is a human being.  Good luck.


Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail.
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Tax #48 from NYT article
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:21:17 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <5644@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>=eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) wrote:
>=> From enumeration of Bill Clinton's "taxes":
>=> "1987
>=> 48. Act 144 authorized the levying of an annual license fee of $500 for
>=> each abortion clinic."
>=> 
>=> Raises a few eyebrows, huh?
>=
>=Not especially.  Did you have a point here?
>
>Well I was hoping you would be able to think about what could be a
>financial/fiscal convienience of being pro-choice with respect to the
>government. Having the government somehow profit from the exploitation
>of women and "murder" of babies doesn't make me feel very comfortable.
>
>Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
>Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
>Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
>August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Taking life pretty seriously. NOT.

Gee, I guess I must have Quayled this one, badly enough that I have to
go Bush (barf).  Seems to me that this isn't much of a tax (of course,
no information is supplied about the previous license fee--was it $450).
Therefore, tax #48 is just another tax increase that exists only in the
mind of Herr Bush.  Second, does George have a problem with levying fees
on abortion?  I've heard he used to be pretty involved in Planned
Parenthood, and maybe he opposes anything that could interfere with easy
abortions.

Gee, I thought I knew your point (that it was a stupid thing to
criticize and call a tax), but I guess I just don't understand the
conservative mind-set (Thanks God!)
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Tom Selleck on Arsenio
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:44:07 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA

In article <1992Oct6.022225.2853@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:
> In article <1992Oct5.195918.1@acad.drake.edu>, vsg001@acad.drake.edu                               writes...
>>In article <5822@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> 
> This explains why the Reagan-Bush administration started to drop people off
> the unemployment numbers if they were under-employed, or "have given up
> finding a job" in the mid-eighties. That way there are fewer people 
> who no longer "need" government aid.
Interesting that you use a quote... care to cite some sources? I think that you
may have misrepresented some basic economic theories. I don't believe that you
can point to the Reagan administration exclusively, if that's what you imply.
Isn't it more of a universal political "strategy" (for lack of a better word)
to use "under-employment" figurers? 
--
Disclaimers.Disclaimers.
		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: bgarfink@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (beth diane garfinkel)
Subject: Re: Extra! Dan is a Genius!
Keywords: masturbation
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:45:57 GMT

In <1992Sep29.183808.18034@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:

>Yes I am being honest.  Yes the book is available, if memory serves it is
>called "The Making of A Senator".  Richard Fenno is a PoliSci prof at
>the University of Rochester (his title may be "Distinguished Prof of ..."
>but I'm not sure).  Anyway, he has a reputation among his peers for his
>impartiality - seriously.  The book is about Quayle's freshman term as
>a senator and it describes not only his accomplishments but his effectiveness
>in the Senate specifically regarding a significant job training bill as well
>as the Patriot missile.  It further mentions that his fellow senators respect
>his abilities as a senator.  Well, to say anymore would be to ruin the book...

Well, if more than two sentences worth of synopsis would ruin the book,
it can't have much substance, can it?  Even Cliffs Notes have more to
them than that!

								Beth


-- 
"I never could get the hang of Thursdays."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: matta@lclark.edu (Matt Alexander)
Subject: Re: Extra! Dan is a Genius!
Keywords: Bolo Bolo
Organization: Sacajawea's Voice
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:05:33 GMT

In <1992Sep29.183808.18034@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes
...>   The book is about Quayle's freshman term as
>a senator and it describes not only his accomplishments but his effectiveness
>in the Senate specifically regarding a significant job training bill as well
>as the Patriot missile.  It further mentions that his fellow senators respect

umm, is this the same patriot missile that was hailed as a success,
used to justify billion$ in future orbital millitarization, and sold to the
saudis? the same missile the pentagon recently admitted that it misfunctioned
92% of the time in the persian gulf?

--- matt "boober" alexander----------------------------------

"We lie to you by not telling you things.
 We don't lie by telling you things that aren't true."
        --- US official to Wash. Post 1/11/91

"Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome
nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -- how passionately I
hate them!"  --Albert Einstein
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 06:21:47 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep29.032847.27616@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>  sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
> At the very least shouldn't a fetus be considered a potential life??

OK, so we'll give it potential rights.  After it's born, these will become
real rights.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Extra! Dan is a Genius!
Keywords: masturbation
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 11:07:24 GMT

best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:

>In article <1992Sep23.153711.22716@ttinews.tti.com> kevin@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers) writes:
>>> [Stirring defense of Dan Quayle's brain capacity by one of the id... er ..
>>> [Switzers deleted
>>
>> The main public question about Quayle is not that he's dumb (which he isn't).
>> The problem is that he's undoubtebly, 100% AVERAGE, And somewhat below to boot

No, Dan is indeed dumb. Not mentally retarded, but dumb.
Watch and listen to him speak sometime. Better yet, watch and listen to
him respond to questions on the fly. He's dumb, alright.

>>
>> And every average American knows for a fact that it's IMPOSSIBLE to get as 
>> far in life as Quayle has on your own with the amount of intelligence Danny
>> has. Which leads public opinion (and rightfully so) to believe Quayle is a 
>> WOMP (White Overpriviledged Male Politician). Quayle would be just another
>> Joe Sixpack American without his family's money, power, and prestige.

>This is what I posted a short time ago, the attacks amount to name calling
>(WOMP, Danny) and emotionalism.

Oh my heart just bleeds. How horribly unfair to Dan to point out that he would
never have gotten into law school were it not for his family. How horribly
unfair to Dan to point out that he would never have avoided the draft if not
for his family. How horribly unfair to Dan to point out that he would never
have gotten a desk job in government if not for his family. How horribly unfair
to Dan to point out he never would have gotten the necessary support within
political circles to get elected to public office if not for his family.

>I stated that a very respected member of
>the academia, Richard Fenno, wrote a book about Quayle's freshman term as
>senator in which he described a competent and effective politician.

Honestly? Is this book available anywhere?
Who exactly is Richard Fenno? And what exactly did he credit Quayle with
being effective at?

Is the statistic I have read -- that there was only one bill Quayle
sponsored to ever become law the entire time he was in Congress, and that
a bill with bipartisan big-name support that passed both houses nearly
unanimously -- not true?

>Contrast this type of argument with yours and you will see why I find most
>of the critique of Quayle devoid of content (and why I consider Liberals
>to base arguments on emotion).

>Mike Best

Ok, Mr. serious thinker. Explain the Burger King incident. Go on.

Dispassionately, of course.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 02:35:12 GMT

schabel@calspan.com (Dave Schabel) wrote (in article <1992Oct2.213133.21202@calspan.com>):
>In article <lcet04INN354@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>>|> 
>>What is absurd is that there is any communication at all.  After all,
>>the entire argument is based upon the disagreement over whether or not
>>the fetus is person.  I haven't seen one argument that doesn't
>>resort to this decision of faith (after all there is no way to prove
>>either side is correct) as the "final argument."
>
>You are absolutely right.  However, since we are and cannot be
>sure if and when it is a person, shouldn't we err on the side
>of caution?  

I couldn't agree more!  Since we have no commonly-accepted definition
of when 'personhood' starts, we should therefore allow abortions at
any time through the nine months of pregnancy.  Otherwise, we run the
risk of severely infringing on a woman's rights, and since that's a
very serious thing in most civilized countries, we really ought to err
on the side of caution.

Oh, did you mean 'err on the side of caution' to _prohibit_ all abortions?

Well, hmm, a born dog is more biologically advanced than a human z/e/f
is for about half a year through its development.  Therefore we really
should outlaw all killings of dogs -- there goes the SPCA, because it
can't afford to care for every stray it finds!  And, gee, there does
exist the possibility that cattle are intelligent beings, no?  So
let's legally require every citizen to be a vegetarian!

The moral of this story is that when you can't find any happy medium
by which to solve a problem, choosing an extreme to solve it with will
usually be far less palatable.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:38:06 GMT


I know I've mentioned this before, but one of my primary objections to
abortion is the prospect of it becoming a eugenics method.  That was practiced
in Nazi Germany.  While I'm sure if abortions were actually conducted, there
was the killing of children they deemed "unfit to live", those born with
physical problems.  Like I've said, I wrry that abortion might be used in the
same way--a child might be born "different", so it is deemed unfit to exist.

Simon

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 16:20:34 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: The Irony of the Abortion Issue
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <20776@plains.NoDak.edu> jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu (Lee A. Jorgensen) writes:
>AND, no where in nature is abortion practiced.  (some eat their
>young), BUT there is NO abortion.

Sorry, Lee, but this is not true.

Example: When a new stallion takes over a herd, it will often kick the
mares impregnated by the previous stallion until they abort.

Zebras are another type of animal that will abort their young, under 
similar circumstances.

I suggest that before you tout something that is not absolutely known to
you to be fact, preface your comment with something to the effect of
"I don't know of any case ...".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "I'll do the thinnin' around here!"
                   ---Quick Draw McGraw
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:45:15 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In  <1992Sep29.140723.9318@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com>  burkhardt@FORCE.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM () writes:
>
> >I would just like to make a small point...  (I'm not flaming you :)
> >
> >I object to the term "Pro-Abortion" (thank you for including "Pro-Choice")
> >in a big way.  I don't think *anyone* is "Pro-Abortion."  That
> >would be like people saying "Whaaaat?  You're PREGNANT??  Go get an
> >abortion NOW!"  Pro-Choicers do *not* think that fetuses *should* be
> >aborted.  They think that they do not have the right to force values and
> >judgements about whether or not they are carrying a baby or merely fetal
> >tissue on to people who may have a difference of opinion.
> >
> >In a perfect world, there would be no need for this debate, because there
> >would be no unwanted pregnancies.  (Wiping out unwanted pregnancies should,
> >IMHO, be where most of the effort of both sides should lie ... but I stray
> >from the topic.)
> >
> >Please do not flame me.  I'm not trying to anger anyone.
>
> This is a ridiculous statement/paragraph to write.  Of course at least 98%
> of all people who get abortions or support abortion are "Pro-Abortion".
> If they were not, then alternatives would be used.

My, this is a particularly stupid statement to make.  First, you're
lumping together people who *get* abortions with those who support the
right to choose (even if they personally oppose that choice).  Second,
in at least 99.2% of abortions (I got my number from the same place
you got yours :-) the abortion is the best (or least objectionable - to
the person involved) choice.  Third, many people who have gotten
abortions are anti-abortion.  They can be out there protesting against
abortions, then discover that they're pregnant and can't afford (for
whatever reason) to carry to term, get an abortion, and be back out
there protesting the very next day.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: schabel@calspan.com (Dave Schabel)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:57:18 GMT
Organization: Calspan Advanced Technology Center

In article <Sep.28.10.23.42.1992.18775@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>
>There is a concensus in this country, that the deliberate killing of a private
>citizen by another private citizen is murder and is wrong.  Therefore, it
>is illegal to do so.  

Wrong.  Murder is the deliberate killing of a *person* (who is not
currently threatening your life), regardless of whether said person is a
citizen or not.

>There is no such concensus on the issue of abortion.

Neither is there a concensus on when a fetus should be accorded some or
all the status of personhood.  _That_ is where the crux of the whole
abortion debate lies, IMHO.  

>You can find as many people who think it is okay, as you can find people
>who think it is wrong.  Therefore, there is no justification to outlaw it.

A slight leap of logic occurrs here.  There just _may_ (I'm not saying
one way or the other just now) be another _person_ involved.

>
>If you believe abortion is wrong, don't have one.  That is your private
>decision.  My decision is also private and it is also mine.  It is not
>a subject for government legislation.

Ah, but IF (just if, mind you, and please go along for sake of
argument) another person is involved, the decision is not
so private.  This may occur only in third trimester abortions, it
may occur within weeks after conception, or it may occur at
conception.  OR it may be that its all a gray area, where it's
not bad to abort immediately after conception, its tantamount
to murder in the third trimester (don't flame me yet, this is
still an example), and is linearly increasing in seriousness
between times (ala the "gradual ensoulment" theory).

There was a time when slave owners used much the same argument.
(oh,oh here come the flames now 8') )

>
>
>-- 
>Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
>Publications Coordinator - User Services
>Rutgers University Computing Services

				Dave Schabel
				schabel@calspan.com
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6375 alt.activism.d:3470 alt.politics.elections:14928 alt.politics.bush:7493 alt.politics.clinton:8160 talk.politics.misc:49103 talk.abortion:40022
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:33:52 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Simon E. Booth) writes:
|> Someone here has said that rights only apply if a fetus is aware.
|> 
|> Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a pregnant woman feel the child
|> moving about??  Does that not constitute awareness??
|> 
The pregnant woman can also feel it when a car hits her.  Does that
contitute awareness for the car?

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6525 alt.activism.d:3537 alt.politics.elections:15136 alt.politics.bush:7712 alt.politics.clinton:8451 talk.politics.misc:49500 talk.abortion:40538
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:43:18 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Simon E. Booth) writes:
|> 
|> Why is it that when someone says that they are pro-choice they staunchly
|> support abortion and refuse to discuss alternatives??

You apparently haven't been listening.  Pro-choice means adding abortion
to the other "choices" available.  Pro-choicers would not recommend to
someone that they have an abortion if it is against their desires or
beliefs.  Pro-choicer means letting pregnant women know what choices are
available and helping them implement their chosen option, whatever it
is.
|> 
|> I think life is a good choice.

And millions make that choice, even millions that support abortion rights.
(Or I wouldn't have any kids).
|> 
|> I have one solution, and I'll get nuclear flamed for it, but what is
|> wrong with abstinence as a means to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
|> BTW--anyone notice that I've kept my postings on the level, without the
|> sarcasm of the replies I get???

There is nothing wrong with abstinence.  In fact, my daughter is practicing
just that.  But there is also nothing wrong with engaging in pre-marital
intercourse, if done with protection and with a person she has an onging,
positive, emotional relationship with. 

The real response to your question though, is that whatever you believe
is a good solution, thousands of women, many of those too young to expect
all of their decisions to be rational and well though out, get pregnant
every year.  You are welcome to sell your solution, but what do we do
about those that don't meet your level of responsibility.

There is a reason we don't allow 14-year old children to vote, drive,
drink, etc.  They are not capable of making good decisions all the time
(who is, actually).

|> Simon

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:08:39 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

Gee, if you're gonna get mad, get mad at the author of the book he
was quoting from.  Some peacenik.........

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh