HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 12 Aug 92 23:47:10 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <21327@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> In article <1992Aug10.222832.22830@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
> >Exodus 21:22-25:
> >
> >     22 And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with
> >        child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further
> >        injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may
> >        demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.
> >     23 But if there is any further injury [meaning to the woman],
> >        then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,
> >     24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
> >     25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
> 
> Yes, it sure is clear cut.  If the death is accidental, it is treated as
> a lessor degree offense.  If the injury is intentional, it is an eye for
> an eye, a life for a life.  This "[ meaning to the woman ]" doesn't
> appear in my Bible.  But certainly "further injury" to the woman WOULD
> include the death of her child.  And then it is "life for life."
 
That doesn't make any sense at all.  It details the penalty if the 
fetus dies (miscarriage).  How can you claim that the "further injury"
part would refer to the fetus dying when it's already dead?
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: fetus vs. baby
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:58:16 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <21350@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.175318.22237@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>Utter hogwash, but fine.  Let him choose.  "Anyone here present who
>>has objection to this abortion, speak now."  If the embryo or foetus
>>doesn't speak up, it just agreed.
>
>Sounds like you just legalized the murder of anyone that is deaf, mute,
>or doesn't speak English.

	It was your suggestion. 

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"They say 'David, what shall I do? They wait for me in the hallway'.
I say 'Don't ask me- I don't know any hallways."- David Bowie, "Scary Monsters"
From: boyd@turtle.fisher.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: <None>
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:27:35 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Fisher Controls International, Austin, TX

In article <1992Aug19.040828.3489@tamsun.tamu.edu>, dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu
(Daryl Biberdorf) writes:

> I don't know of many (any?) pro-lifers who "accuse" pregnant women
> of sin or ostracize them.
>

Can you say Dan Quayle?

--
Tom Boyd     (512)832-3611             "She looked fluffy,
boyd@turtle.fisher.com                       but she struck like a cobra!"
From: elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 11 Aug 92 22:01:51 GMT
Organization: Eric's Amiga 2000 @ Home

From article <21336@rpp386.lonestar.org>, by jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II):
> In article <00713484942@elgamy.sccsi.com> elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
>>Latest Texas poll, reported in the Houston Chronicle today (page 4A,
>>8-10-92): 67% of Texans believe that the decision to abort or not should be
>>the mother's. 65% of Texas Republicans feel that way.
>
> BUT WHAT WAS THE QUESTION THEY ASKED!
>
> You can't just post poll results and then say "Well, that says that 65% of
> Texas Republicans are pro-choice".  It says that 65% of Texas Republicans
> agreed with the question they were asked.  And you aren't telling us what
> that question was!

Nice try, John.

Here's the actual poll results: It was a multiple choice question. "What
should the Texas Legislature do on the abortion issue?" was the question.
And here were the possible answers:

a) Make abortion illegal except to save the mother's life -- 11%
b) Make abortion illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or saving
    the mother's life  -- 18%
c) Enact more restrictions, but still allow adult women the choice
   of an abortion -- 14%
d) Leave the decision up to the woman -- 53%
e) Unsure -- 5%

Amongst Republicans:
a) 12%
b) 20%
c) 15%
d) 50%
e) 3%

Even amongst Republicans, only 32% wanted to make abortion
illegal-with-exceptions.

The Houston Chronicle Poll was conducted July 31 to Aug 5 and has an error
margin of plus or minus 4 points.

=========
 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: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Quayle on Values:  Where he stands and his background
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:06:41 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <21353@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>Yes.  "The Merriam-Webster Dictionary".  It was $3.95.  You should get
>one.

	You know, the more expensive ones aren't just fancier- they have more
words and definitions.
	BTW, your (and Daryl's) point about P.P. does verify to my satisfaction
that they're biased, and I agree that's a crock of sh*t. They ought to be 
doing exactly what you are saying- trying to at least give both sides of the
story, if not outright advocating carrying the child to term. There shouldn't
be any place that's _pushing_ abortion, IMO. I defend it, but it should 
not be pushed off as an equal alternative to having the child. 

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"They say 'David, what shall I do? They wait for me in the hallway'.
I say 'Don't ask me- I don't know any hallways."- David Bowie, "Scary Monsters"
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Republican Candidates
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 06:32:39 GMT
 <1992Aug21.043108.19059@cactus.org>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug21.043108.19059@cactus.org>, Henry Velick writes:
> call itself, good or bad, was made necessary mostly because the U.S.
> government armed Iraq to the teeth. Swell, welfare for the arms
> manufacturers. They rake in the profits, the taxpayers pay the bills.

Why does this lie persist?  The Iraqis had no known American weapons except those
acquired indirectly from Vietnam.  Their military hardware is mostly Russian and
French.


                                                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: Quayle on Values:  Where he stands and his background
Date: 14 Aug 92 03:06:42 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Aug12.232205.12965@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>Considering the fact that a Surgeon General with very strong pro-life
>credentials came out and said that simply wasn't true, you are going
>to have a tough time convincing anyone else.

This isn't my source, but it agrees with my position.

HBO did a documentary on abortion.  Virtually all of the women who
were shown broke down and bawled their eyes out after the abortion.
This isn't the "great relief" that Johniac describes.

If you ever get a chance, watch that show.
-- 
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: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:11:06 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <exuptr.289.713576483@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>Let me get behind the think of your argument.  The woman has an "absolute
>right" to choose not to support the fetus any longer.  Why does this change
>at the instant of birth.  Why can the mother suddenly be held accountable
>for not feeding or bathing the infant, in your opinion?  It's got nothing
>to do with the fact that she can adopt, because then she is still providing
>for the child indirectly.

If doesn't change at the instant of birth. The particular individual woman can
choose not to support the child by giving it up for adoption. THe distinction
is between one particular woman and someone in general.
At birth, she is no longer biologically attached to the child, and so can
choose not to support it.

>If mothers want to stop supporting a fetus I think they should have to do
>what they do with an infant - they should adopt it.  Once someone else
>takes whatever steps are necessary to ensure the child's / fetus's health, 
>then momma is off the hook.

Fine. Unfortunately, that currently only applies after birth, since we can't
transplant fetuses. The instant we can, I'll stop supporting abortion in its
present form.

>What's more, I think the woman should want this.  Realizing, of course, that
>I'm in for a lot of frustration trying to tell people what they should want.
>But, hell, it happens to me all the time.

Who, exactly, are you to tell someone else what they should want?

>Bottom line: fetus, baby, child, teenager, whatever.  It's *your* 
>responsibility because you made it.  I don't know about making all these
>laws, except in the case where someone expects me to pay for it.  What I
>do know is people are making the wrong choice.

"Wrong" in your religious opinion, of course. The responsibility is
transferrable in all cases you mention except for the fetus.

>>Even so, that does *not* interfere with a woman's absolute right to terminate
>>a pregnancy.
>No one has established for a fact that this right exists, and I for one
>don't believe it.

If not, you condemn women to a lifetime of legal slavery. Is that what you
really want?
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
   "This is a network here, right?  How about giving a little thought to
            interoperability?" -- John F. Woods, to Brian Kantor
From: rbutera@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert John Butera)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Fetal Brainwaves (was: Re: fetus vs. baby)
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:22:37 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Aug20.171951.395@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>Well, let's look at the incredibly long note I posted a while back
>with citations from several economics texts.  Turns out that that was
>'not good enough'.  I've cited NPR as the source of several things,
>etc.  If you feel the need to 'verify', call them up!  Otherwise, you
>have simply established the 'rule' that only printed matter 'counts'.
>And that, I'm afraid, simply doesn't make sense.
>

Such a rule is in effect, and does make sense.  Go to any academic
conference (sciences or engineering) or even a high school debate
team.  The only references that are commonly accepted by peers in discussions
and debates are written ones (which do include transcripts).  Quite
simply, anything "off-the-radio" or "heard-in-the-cafeteria" is at
best indirect information and subject to question.   Such references
are not easily verifiable and subject to the memory of the one that
heard it (i.e. a significant loss in "information content" occurs as
the message is transmitted).

Furthermore, having a reference allows one to research the author and
whatever bias exists in that person's writing.

I like John's postings - I may not always agree with him but they do
tend to be well researched.  Sure, one may charge a selective use of
facts, but with references that can be verified  - just go to the
nearest academic library and learn how to search the literature,
citation indexes, etc.  Besides, NOBODY has ever written an unbiased
document ...

-- 
Rob Butera - ECE grad student   Rice University, Houston, TX   rbutera@rice.edu
"On the surface, selling arms to a country that sponsors terrorism, of
 course, clearly, you'd have to argue it's wrong, but it's the exception
 sometimes that proves the rule" - George Bush, 1987
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:23:36 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

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

>Since John Haugh announced in the posting from which the first quote is
>taken that he is no longer going to listen to or submit to the net, there
>is much to wonder about the third quote, which contained his signature.
>Either:
>1.  He lied about leaving the net, and he is the author of the third quote.
>2.  A malicious person forged the third posting.
>3.  Haugh set up the situation to make it look like 2.
>My preferential vote is 2/1/3.

I didn't interpret his note to mean "immediately and without further delay"
but "pretty darn soon".  Is that reasonable or not?
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - D Adams
  - Patrick Taylor
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    alternately, exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org
From: landy@bear.austin.ibm.com (Landy Ligon)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Quayle on Values:  Where he stands and his background
Date: 11 Aug 92 23:04:08 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM PSP, Austin

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> In article <21253@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh
> II) writes:
> >This is why you and John are so opposed to forcing women to be fully informed
> >- you must propagate the myth that a 9 week old child is some little lump of
> >tissue.  
> 
> Surprise, John: I'm not against fully informing women. That title belongs to
> those who insist that women shouldn't be told that abortion is an option.

As well as to those who insist on withholding information about fetal
development, abortion alternatives, and abortion procedures, risks and
consequences.

> Medical ethics demand that patients' decisions be made with all available
> information. I support nothing less - from either side of the argument.
Then it sounds like you would approve of the information given to clients
of the Austin Crisis Pregnancy Center (which is hopefully typical of the
CAC affiliated Crisis Pregnancy Centers).  They will not counsel a woman
to have an abortion or refer for an abortion, but they do give an
excellent, clinical presentation of what is involved in an abortion
procedure.  Of course they also provide counseling on alternatives
and fetal development, all for the low, low price of $0.00.  You get
the entire picture at the cost of your time.
-- 
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: kossack@taronga.com (Jordan M. Kossack)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Presidential Candidates
Date: 22 Aug 92 05:11:38 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
- How can the man who singlehandedly whipped the evil empire into submission,
- making the world safe for all, stand there in front of God and everyone and
- tell us he can't handle the guys in his own Congress?  

     The same way he promised no new taxes.  (Or was it KNOW new taxes?) 

     I don't want to vote for either of those Dempublican bozos.  
     After all, let's face it - the American people are going to 
     get screwed if either "King George" Bush or "Slick Willie" 
     Clinton is the next president.  

 Barbara and Marilyn in '92.  This time vote for their better halves. 


-- 
  kossack@taronga.com  |  "One has a moral responsibility  
  Jordan M Kossack     |      to disobey unjust laws."    
  +1 713 240 2073      |   -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
From: hen3ry@cactus.org (Henry Velick)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:37:42 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Only When Necessary

In article <b1lxr*BQ0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>
> [ ...buncha other stuff... ]
>
>A fertilized chicken egg has a chicken inside.  A puppy is a dog.  A baby is a
>human.  A fetus is a baby.  These are things that everyone knows.  You pro-
>abortion people simply want to change the words so that you can rationalize
>your pro-murder position.
>

Posts such as this show just why I, and possibly others, cannot take
you seriously. You, like a few others in this group, refuse to allow
that those with whom you argue might have a genuine difference of
opinion and judgement. To you, we all deny what we know to be true
in order to further some sinister political agenda. Right...

-- 
\-- Henry Velick   \  Millions long for immortality, who don't know what   \
 \-- Datalingus     \  to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.   \
  \-- Austin, Texas  \ -----------------------------------      Susan Ertz   \
   \-- 512-459-5770   \ Purveyors of Fine Graphics Software and Consultation  \
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: hen3ry@cactus.org (Henry Velick)
Subject: Re: Republican Candidates
Organization: Only When Necessary
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 05:58:53 GMT

In article <7138@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.192005.1787@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>>Since the most compelling quality Bush claims to have is his outstanding
>>foreign policy record [...]
>
>Actually, Bush's most compelling quality to me is that he's the only effective
>brake on an amok, Democrat-controlled Congress. Clinton would let Congress
>spend this country into oblivion.

Do you think he'd have spent, what was it, forty, sixty billion
dollars to kill tens (hundreds?) of thousands of civilians, to
restore a repressive monarchy in Kuwait? That's an awful lot of
school lunches and job-training programs.

-- 
\-- Henry Velick   \  Millions long for immortality, who don't know what   \
 \-- Datalingus     \  to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.   \
  \-- Austin, Texas  \ -----------------------------------      Susan Ertz   \
   \-- 512-459-5770   \ Purveyors of Fine Graphics Software and Consultation  \
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4256 alt.flame:12219
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.flame
Subject: Re: So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:35:34 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug20.160829.28245@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>Unfortunately, this is just one in a string of notes from John Haugh
>II that seems to indicate that he *IS* a total asshole.  I still
>consider that HIS problem, though, and not mine.

I've always wondered, why do people say  "total" asshole?

				
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - D Adams
  - Patrick Taylor
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    alternately, exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:23:46 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <zt1vr*YO0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>In article <1992Aug10.230126.25081@NeoSoft.com>, Joe Mullally writes:

>> Of course, I'm not an abortion lover. I am a rights lover. Having rights

>Then why don't you love the rights of the baby?

What baby?  When it becomes a baby, then I'll 'love its rights'.


>> 	Tell me, tell me, _who_ is doing the redefining?  We surely did

>The pro-abortionists.

>> some redefining to abolish slavery. Was that bad? Is your agenda bad? I

>Slavery is irrelevant.

>> don't think so. To yourself, I'm sure you feel you are introducing 
>> society to an idea as was done w.r.t. slavery. But, don't again make this
>> mistake- that _we're_ doing the reinventing. _We're_ doing as has been
>> done. _You're_ doing the redefining. Case-in-point: that which is not found 
>> in the Constitution is usually deferred to English Common Law. ECL did

>ECL is irrelevant.

Sounds like anything that could conceivably cause you to have to break
open that closed mind and admit a little light and thought is
'irrelevant'.  From that, I would say that Jim Pritchett and his
opinion that a 4-cell blastoma should be called 'a baby' are
irrelevant. 

>> not proscribe abortion. Who's doing the inventing? I don't mind that you
>> are; in fact, I support it. That's the American way.

>No, I'm not.  I'm not the one trying to euphemise abortion into some sort of
>clinical non-event.  The pro-abortionists are the ones who change pro-abortion
>to pro-choice.  They change baby to fetus or parasite or tissue.

If you examine things a bit, you will find that nature has already
mandated that this change takes place in the opposite direction:
'tissue' to embryo to foetus to baby, becoming a 'parasite' at roughly
the embryo point.


-- 
"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: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:28:01 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <hA2vr*5P0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>In article <1992Aug11.224650.19696@watson.ibm.com>, John Iacoletti writes:

>> In article <MZIur*CO0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>> |> Remember, Slick
>> |> Willie dumped his original VP choice because he had the temerity to state publicly
>> |> that the Pennsylvania abortion regulations were reasonable.

>The much rumored original choice was Rep. Lee Hamilton.

Funny, I never heard any rumours that the choice was ever made.
Hamilton was just one candidate among several (and I follow these
things fairly closely).  Now, would you care to tell us the basis for
your claims that he was THE selection (that the decision was actually
made) and that the reason for its retraction was his position on the
Pennsylvania abortion statutes?  

I have heard NEITHER of those things.  Apparently neither had John
Iacoletti.  Has ANYONE heard any such things, even as reasonably
well-founded rumours? 



-- 
"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.