HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:01:02 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <L7Lqr*CK0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>It is really quite simple and logical.  Murder is worse than slavery.  Therefore,
>your argument carries no weight.

...except that terminating a pregnancy isn't murder. Reference the argument
about capital punishment on here a while back: it isn't murder unless the law
says it is. If abortion is murder, then capital punishment must be - since
both have the same state relative to the law.

>As for the old "coathanger" red herring, I have little sympathy for someone who
>injures herself in the process of attempting to murder her unborn child.  Such
>a possibility can in no way morally justify allowing/encoraging/condoning
>convenience abortions.

You're _not_ going to stop someone  who wishes to terminate her pregnancy, no
matter how hard you try. You _cannot_ effectively prohibit them.

>It is really sad that some people actually believe that we should allow the
>murder of over a million babies a year via convenience abortions in order to
>avoid the accidental death of a few women who might die trying to murder their
>own babies.

Non sequitur. There is no baby to be murdered; just a parasitic growwth to be
removed from the woman's body.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by a .sig virus.
"Right now, because of you, this city is being overrun by baboons." "Don't
 you think that's the responsibility of the voters?" -- _Naked Gun 2-1/2_
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: AIDS info to kids? (was Re: separation of church and state)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 21:19:10 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <1992Jul23.225950.1108@NeoSoft.com>, rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul23.154024.27517@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
|> >You tell me:  What is the "purpose" of sex?
|> 
|> 	To propagate. The pleasure is nature's incentive.

Perhaps that's the biological purpose, but the popularity of
contraceptives and abortion would seem to indicate that lots of people
have sex for the pleasure and not in order to propogate.  Would you
say that these people are "misusing" sex?

|> 	At what age do you feel people should be allowed to drive? vote?
|> drink booze?  

Why do you think 14-16 year olds are competent enough to drive but not 
competent enough to have sex?

|> And since it's "not that hard", why all the problems (teen
|> pregnancy, for example)?

Why do you consider pregnancy to be more of a "problem" if the pregnant
person is between 13 and 19 years old?

|> >Please explain your reasoning behind this assessment of the Nietzsche
|> >quote.
|> 
|> 	Nah, that was another Nietzsche quote. (-: It can be easily 
|> disproven, for one thing. It's naive, because it targets only (I assume)
|> faith w.r.t. religion, not faith as a human emotion (which it is).
|> [remainder deleted] 

While I always enjoy your philosophical treatises, I think you're
reading much more into the Nietzsche quote than is necessary.  Not
wanting to know what's true doesn't mean that what you have faith in
*isn't* true, it just means that your belief in something is based on
something other than the evidence.  This would be true even if there
were no evidence to examine.

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
     "Faith:  not *wanting* to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: darylb@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Daryl Biberdorf)
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:58:49 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.205515.13341@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>In article <21183@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>|> Any child
>|> with a heartbeat and/or brainwaves may not be killed without due process.

>Drawing the line at the presence of heartbeat or brainwaves is just as
>arbitrary as drawing it at conception or viability or birth.  It's
>just the point that makes the most sense to *you*, that's all.

Not really.  We usually define clinical death as being the absence of
heartbeat or brainwaves (or both), so doesn't it make sense to define
life (in humans) as the presence of both of these functions?

Daryl
--
Daryl Biberdorf                 |  Compaq Computer Corporation | standard
darylb@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com |  20555 SH 249  M/S 060701    | disclaimer
dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu         |  Houston, TX 77070           | applies
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 26 Jul 92 17:25:28 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <6996@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>So it cannot be allowed to force that particular host mother into slavery for
>nine months.

It isn't forcing "that particular host mother into slavery."  Childbearing
is NOT slavery.  If the woman wants to prevent herself from bearing children
there are ways of doing that.  Murdering another individual is not one of
them.

This is the same bogus argument that non-custodial fathers try to use.  "But
I shouldn't have to pay child support because it is slavery."  Bullshit - if
you didn't want to produce a child, there are ways to do that.  Murdering
children and not honoring your financial obligations are NOT the proper
way of doing this.  If we allow this "slavery" line of reasoning to prevail,
we will see increased justification for abandoning children or refusing to
pay child support.  After all, if the woman can terminate the financial
responsibility, so can the man ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | Vida en La Republica de Tejas:
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  A Tejana woman, after spending the rent
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  money on the Tejas Lottery - "I can't go
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |  home, my husband will beat me up."
From: carder@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Darrell Carder)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: separation of church and state
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:44:29 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin Tx.

In article <1992Jul20.172009.27892@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>In article <21163@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> 
>|> This is nonsense, Jay.  What we are objecting to isn't the absense of
>|> "Christian values" but of ANY values.  Christian values would be a nice
>|> goal, but frankly students aren't even taught the simplest moral values.
>
>OK, specifically:  What simple moral values would you like taught that
>aren't currently being taught?  A list please.
>
>-- 
>John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
>        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
>     "Faith:  not *wanting* to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche

How about taking on the responsibility of your own actions.
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 30 Jul 92 05:59:43 GMT
 <7002@lib.tmc.edu>
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <7002@lib.tmc.edu>, Jay Maynard writes:

> In article <21202@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> >It isn't forcing "that particular host mother into slavery."  Childbearing
> >is NOT slavery.  If the woman wants to prevent herself from bearing children
> >there are ways of doing that.  Murdering another individual is not one of
> >them.
> 
> Quite aside from the question of the woman who has taken the appropriate steps
> and had them fail, it IS slavery: you would have her serve that fetus for nine

It is really quite simple and logical.  Murder is worse than slavery.  Therefore,
your argument carries no weight.

As for the old "coathanger" red herring, I have little sympathy for someone who
injures herself in the process of attempting to murder her unborn child.  Such
a possibility can in no way morally justify allowing/encoraging/condoning
convenience abortions.

It is really sad that some people actually believe that we should allow the
murder of over a million babies a year via convenience abortions in order to
avoid the accidental death of a few women who might die trying to murder their
own babies.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 30 Jul 92 04:36:04 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Jul29.230311.23226@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>In article <21211@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>|> Oh, who the hell knows the source.  It was on the damned radio.
>
>Hypocrisy alert!  How come Fred can't get away with "I saw it on TV
>when I was flipping through the channels", but you try to get away
>with "It was on the damned radio"?

Simple.  I usually post my sources, and when I can't find them or
don't remember, I admit it.  Fred kept squirming about all those
studies that "proved" how poor people paid more and got lower quality
(tho he later changed that to "paid more =or= got lower quality")
and when push finally came to shove, his only response was "I heard
about it while flipping channels.  I spent an entire lunch hour
strolling about East Austin checking grocery prices (or calling dry
cleaners).  Fred cut and pasted a paragraph about channel flipping.
I posted a snippit from an American Rifleman article.  Fred re-posted
the channel flipping paragraph ...
-- 
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."
From: landy@bear.austin.ibm.com (Landy Ligon)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:10:07 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM PSP, Austin

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> In article <21171@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> >"Fetus" is a latin word, and it doesn't mean "parasite" or "unhuman".  A
> >"fetus" is a child - it has the same DNA structure as the rest of the homo
> >sapiens.  It is the fundemental concept of reproduction that dictates that
> >a "fetus" is a human child - it can no more be a non-human child than a
> >lemon tree can produce apples.  But you know all that.
> 
> "Fetus" doesn't mean "child", either, except to anti-abortion zealots.
> It means a being in a particular stage of development into a separate human
> child. It is not a child yet.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language writes:
child - 2.a. An unborn infant; fetus.

I suspect that it is the pro-abortion zealots who have made the attempt to
de-personalize the unborn children.  As you do not claim to be a pro-abortion
zealot one can assume that their attempts at altering the meaning of the word
to suit their purposes has met with some degree of success.

You might also pause to consider how expecting parents think about the fetus.
How do you think that they might react (even if they don't happen to be
anti-abortion zealots) to your insinuation that the fetus was not their child?

> > stuff deleted
> 
> What child? Show me a child. Without using technological marvels such as
> ultrasound or fiber-optic cameras. Point to a separate individual that I can
> see.
Seems like quite a few of the anti-abortion zealots have made the attempt to
accomodate such ridiculous requests.  Perhaps you have not been exposed to the
pictures or the bodies of these children after they have been aborted?  Well I
must admit that they are indeed dead by that time so you might object that the
dead child isn't human.  If you choose to ignore arguments when it doesn't
suit your position what makes you think that people will listen to you?

I hope that you do not have this aversion to these types of technological
marvels if you happen to end up with a brain tumor.  Imagine how silly
your statement would sound to yourself then.

-- 
Landy Ligon (landy@bear.austin.ibm.com)
DISCLAIMER: The content of this posting is independent of official IBM position.
Internal: landy@austin.ibm.com 	VNET: LANDY at AUSTIN  T/L: 678-8188
From: rbutera@is.rice.edu (Rob Butera)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 31 Jul 92 00:24:40 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Jul29.225110.23575@watson.ibm.com>, john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
|> 
|> |> This is the same bogus argument that non-custodial fathers try to use.  "But
|> |> I shouldn't have to pay child support because it is slavery."
|> 
|> If the father never wanted the child in the first place, he *shouldn't*
|> have to support it financially.  The mother should consider this in
|> her decision whether to keep the child or not.
|> 

I'm not alway crazy about your ideas, but this is especially ludicrous! 
What about personal responsiblity?  It takes two to have a kid, even an 
unwanted one.  Would you conceed that the father at least has to help 
pay for the cost of the abortion?  Of course, unless he can prove in a
court of law that he was lied to or deceived about his partner's use
of a birth control device ....

Now, what if she wants to keep the baby?  Unless some sort of "pre-sexual"
agreement was made, which is quite doubtful, the father has some rsponsibility
towards the child - he created it out of a willing act, and knew the
consequences if an "accident" happened.  Unless it was agreed upon before
the sex act occured that in the case of a pregnancy a termination or 
absolution of responsibility would occur, I'd say he has some responsiblity.

|> -- 
|> John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
|>         My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
|>      "Faith:  not *wanting* to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche

	while we're on this Nietzsche kick:

         "Only sick music makes money today" - Nietzsche, 1888

-- 
Rob Butera - ECE grad student   Rice University, Houston, TX   rbutera@rice.edu

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" - Ronald Reagan, 1980
"Why should we figure out how to fix your colon cancer?" - Me
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 25 Jul 92 17:57:42 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Jul22.195004.25794@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>Just about as far-fetched as calling something with no brain waves or
>something with less neural tissue than a flatworm a 'child' or a
>'human being'.  I'm curious, John (and others); just where do you draw
>the line?  Does merely having human DNA make something a 'human
>being'?  Or is there something more than that?

At the end of three months gestational age, a child has far more neural
tissue than a flatworm.  Even at two months, a child has more.  You can
measure and read brainwaves at 8 weeks.  Children react to light and noise
by 3 months and display boredom if given the same sounds repetively.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | Vida en La Republica de Tejas:
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  A Tejana woman, after spending the rent
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  money on the Tejas Lottery - "I can't go
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |  home, my husband will beat me up."
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: FLASH! Henry Ross Perot QUITS!
Date: 22 Jul 92 04:25:24 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:

> Yes, but I do blame Bush for being such a gutless wonder.  He said "no 
> new taxes", and he should have stuck by it.  He said "no quota bills"
> and he should have stuck by it.  Congress has never been able to
> override a Bush veto, so there was no excuse for his lack of spine. 
> He let Congress push him around, and he should get called for saying
> one thing and doing another.

Hear Hear!  Couldn't agree more.  Bush the Liar.

> His entire campaign so far has been "everything is Congress's fault"
> and "those guys are Liberals".  Re-electing Bush isn't going to change
> congress any, and mindless repetition of the "L" word is meaningless
> unless he talks about specific issues and why Clinton's ideas won't
> work, and why his ideas are better.

We _do_ need a Republican Congress for a while. The best we could hope for
is a return to relative sanity; the worst we could get is "things as they
is." (Actually, I'm for voting out all incumbents and voting in a new set,
no matter what the party. And keep turning them out of office until a set
arrives who understands that they have to produce what the electorate
wants.) In either case we need a non-gutless president who will be more
concerned about building up the home front vs. running around the world
giving away our money and our sovereignty.

Chris

> -- 
> John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.co
>         My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
>      "Faith:  not *wanting* to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche

        (Nietzsche is dead!)

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
From: skywalker@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Running for St. Rep
Date: 22 Jul 1992 21:32:05 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute

I would like to run for state office, where does one start ?
who do you contact/notify ?

Any advise would be apreciated.

thanks
Tim
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 27 Jul 92 13:04:09 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Jul26.175810.19777@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>I'm told that human brainwaves don't occur until the 4-5 month range.

That's OK.  Human brainwaves develop before that time period just the same ...

	"1250 Health-Care Questions Women Ask" by Joe S. McIlhaney, Jr. MD

	"Fetal Growth

	 ...

	 40 days   The baby's brain waves can be detected, recorded,
		   and even read by a doctor."

This is consistent with a number of other texts all of which give similiar
schedules for fetal development.  If you ever seen a picture of a child at
this stage of development, the head is disproportionately large compared to
the head of an adult.  And if you've ever seen an ultrasound before the 4
to 5 month mark, you'd see the child having quite a time flopping and
swimming about.

>I consider a heartbeat irrelevent.

In the absense of brainwaves, I agree.
-- 
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."
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 27 Jul 92 13:07:03 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Jul26.181440.20103@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>This seems to conflict with what I am told, and given your bias I
>don't think I care to accept your claims.  I'll check further and get
>back to you, but for now, I'll accept the word of the lady I know who
>works at the lab for the drug company over the word of the guy who
>works on computers.

That's OK.  I usually post references when I'm questioned.  Some people
think I make this stuff up - I don't, I keep a nicely stocked shelf of
reference books and learned how to use the card catalog at an early age.

Now you be sure to post titles and authors.  The standard paragraph you
post about your channel flipping exercises won't cut it this time.
-- 
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: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 25 Jul 92 18:17:30 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <6981@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>Once again, you miss the point. How many times do I have to make it?

No, I got the point.

Some woman decides that she doesn't want to support the child that
is within her.  Because the child happens to be dependent on her and
her along, you claim that she should be allowed to kill the child.

Do I have it now?

>I am not dependent on any particular cow. Any cow will serve. They're
>interchangeable as far as my biological needs are concerned.

And when all of the animals in the animal kingdom protest your eating
them, will you go quietly?

>The same is not true of a fetus. It is biologically dependent on one
>particular host mother. No other person will serve.

So?

>See the difference yet? Or are you just ignoring it? Or are you too stupid to
>see it?

It isn't a difference worth noting.  Do you have the consent of all
the dead animals in your pantry?  All the dead plants, too?  Is it
signed and notorized?
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | Vida en La Republica de Tejas:
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  A Tejana woman, after spending the rent
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  money on the Tejas Lottery - "I can't go
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |  home, my husband will beat me up."