HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
Subject: Stop preaching and try personal Responsibility (Was: Choice for life)
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:15:58 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


In article <1992Oct6.064229.23498@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
 
>I never said to prohibit sex, and based on what I have read, it is
>an enjoyable experience for some people, but what's wrong with a little
>responsibility???

I just love it when pro-lifers spout off about responsibility as if
it is something they understand.  Simon, if you want to do the 
responsible thing regarding abortion you should drop your legislative
agenda now.  That is irresponsible behavior.  If you want to save
fetus, it is very irresponsible to force someone to care for something
that you treasure at great personal sacrifice for them and no personal
sacrifice for yourself.  The responsible thing for you to do is to 
personal responsibility to protect fetus's.  Help women who are 
dealing with un-wanted pregnancy.  There is a possibility that just 
a place to stay for a while may convince a woman to continue a 
pregnancy.  Take them into your house.  Maybe another woman may
need a few thousand dollars to survive the time she can't work.
Give her the money.  Another woman might just need something like
the parental leave bill passed to convince her to carry to term.
Right your congress critter to try and over-ride the religious
rights stooge's veto.  These are just a few of the personal 
sacrifices you yourself can make to eliminate the need for 
abortion.  These would be responsible actions as opposed to
the irresponsible method of forcing others against their will
to care for fetus's.  Why don't you try and be responsible.
 
>And let me assure you: I most definitely practice the solution I propose.

My sex life is none of your business unless I choose to
involve you, and I really don't even care a little bit about
your sex life.
 
>Simon

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Another Dehumanizer Steps Forward....
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:37:52 GMT

burkhardt@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes ...
>>mlbruce@husc8.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes ...
>>>[...] I'll cut quick to the punch-line: I, as I would assume
>>>a pretty fair majority of people do, believe that life begins at conception.
>>
>>Wrong.  Best guess: life began 3.5 billion years ago (3.5 thousand million
>>for the Brits).
>
>  Real cute answer.  Is this supposed to be a joke?

No.

>>What makes conception the big doo-dah?
>>
>  You really don't get it do you?  Conception is the starting point of 
>  human life.  It's the only absolute point of developement short of birth
>  that you can point to as a definitive stage.  To discuss whether a fetus
>  is capable of independant life is irrelevant since medical technology
>  will eventually make anything possible.

"the only absolute point of developement short of birth".  Well then,
how about birth?  As for your assertion that medical technology will
eventually make anything possible: nonsense.  And even if it did, doesn't
mean it would be feasable.

Besides, there's also insemination, ovulation, and myelination as 
pretty definitive stages of development.  Just because _you_ say
conception is the start of a person, doesn't mean you're right.

>>And wrap it all up with some standard pro-life emotional rhetoric.
>
>  Same thing can be said about pro-abortionists.

I don't know many, and the few I do know of don't generally resort
to the sort of rhetoric you've just indulged in.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:42:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.144949.11768@meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>I have much less of a problem with elected officials, such as Gov. Reagan,
>enacting the will of the people they represent than I do with a few guys in
>robes handing down decrees that override the will of people who never voted
>for them and have no recourse against them.

Well then I guess that you'll be having no problem at all when Clinton,
promising choice, gets elected by a huge margin. Proving that the majority
of Americans are pro-choice. It will be the will of the people you know.


Stan Knight
|4 more weeks, 4 more weeks, 4 more weeks, 4 more weeks|


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49118 alt.rush-limbaugh:6379 alt.politics.bush:7501 alt.politics.clinton:8173 alt.politics.elections:14934 talk.abortion:40029 alt.sex:31668
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:54:22 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> Michael Polen) writes:

|> >Let me try another example.  Someone sneaks into Frank O's bedreoom
|> >and implants a 2 month old fetus into his wife's womb.  Would removal of
|> >that fetus be an immoral killing of a person?
|> 
|> What you are actually describing, michael, is my wife being raped.  Thank you
|> very much for painting _that_ mental for me this Friday morning, especially
|> as I will be away on business next week and my wife be alone in a house with
|> crappy locks in a foreign country where xenophobia is on the rise.
|> 
|> But I will talk to you anyway, if only to slap some sense into you.
|> Did my wife consent to this?
|> No?
|> Then her right to bodily autonomy should obtain.
|> She may keep it if she cares to, not if she doesn't.
|> 
|> In short, if she didn't have a hand in putting it there, then she is not
|> responsible for its care and feeding, either.
|> 
|> This is different to the case when a couple consent to sex, and their birth 
|> control doesn't work.  In that case, who do you say puts the two month old 
|> fetus into the woman's womb?

How about we call this "rape by statistcal variance?"
Another example of this is that you sneak into your wife's birth control
pill dispenser and replace them with asprins.  Or you pucture the 
condom she bought for you to wear.  Have you raped your wife 
and is she now able to "keep it if she cares to, not if she doesn't?"
|> 
|> I hope that that is an answer to your question, which did not deserve one.
|> 
Thanks for the answer.  It was what I expected.  Your concern
over abortion has nothing to do with concerns over the fetus.  You do not
consider it murder.  You are only concerned with a woman's sexual
responsibility.  That is morality legislation, and doesn't fit the
legal model I desire for the US.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 02:02:18 GMT

varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:

>	No reflexes? Have you ever seen a film of a child being
>killed in his/her mother's womb?? They certainly DO have reflexes.

This is something I don't understand about pro-"life"rs (I don't
know if Varney qualifies).  Movies like "The Silent Scream", that
claim to show abortions.  I mean, if you truly believe the fetus
is a child, then we're talking about kiddie snuff porn here!
Do we show people pictures of murdered adults to convince them
that murder is wrong?  It seems that if you need that kind of
thing to make your point, your point must not have been very 
strong to begin with.

Oh, and there's no reason to attribute things to reflex (or even
"agony") that can be adequately explained by fluid dynamics.

>		Bruce

                          -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48588 alt.rush-limbaugh:6191 alt.politics.bush:7159 alt.politics.clinton:7774 alt.politics.elections:14640 talk.abortion:39397 alt.sex:31313
From: pallesen@med.wcc.govt.nz (Lloyd Pallesen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Love or Sex
Date: 30 Sep 1992 00:13:56 GMT
Organization: Wellington City Council, Wgtn, NZ
Reply-To: pallesen@med.wcc.govt.nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: blade.wcc.govt.nz

In article <1992Sep29.201600.5463@ncsu.edu>, bkdavis@eos.ncsu.edu (B K DAVIS) writes:
>
>Which would you rather have ? Would you rather be in love with a person and 
>spend time together, or would you rather have sex with people (safe people ie
>no diease)? Are there any lovers out there ? I mean people who take their time
>plot and plan a seduction, not a get drunk wham bam. 

Definitely the former, being in love with someone is (for me at any rate) more
of a 'high' than any wham bam etc.  Having said that the seduction of the love
of my life was hardly planned by either of us but never mind (-;

>Brian
>Tetsu Yama

Lloyd
**************************************************************
pallesen@med.wcc.govt.nz	tel: (04)801-3281
"Hey don't shoot me man, I'm just a graceful slow dancer, 
I'm just a dream, not real to you at all" Bruce Cockburn
**************************************************************
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48376 alt.rush-limbaugh:6101 alt.politics.bush:7030 alt.politics.clinton:7621 alt.politics.elections:14538 talk.abortion:39087 alt.sex:31182
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: A question I have always wanted to ask
From: mlbruce@husc8.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce)
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:50:06 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:



>Why does no one ever talk about UnBornGrandParents?


>ciao
>drieux


>-- 
>Modern Day Problems

>Does that 'answer' your question,
>or should I be a little more vague.
 Perhaps because there is a major difference between seperately-existing
eggs and sperm, and already-conceived human...

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48995 sci.edu:1049 alt.hurricane.andrew:129 soc.culture.usa:7588
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Mentor Graphics -- IC Group
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:05:53 GMT

In article <5603@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>Well that's some spin you're putting on! Even in light of the polls and
>statements that most women are not in favor of abortion (which doesn't
>necessarily mean they're all pro-life), you'll still say that there is
>... uhm-uhm ... some "pro-life conspiracy" that makes sure the people
>quoted in newspapers and seen in protests and arrested are women while
>the men sit in some smoked-filled strategy-room smirking how it seems
>like the pro-life movement is dominated with women?

I never said there was a pro-life conspiracy, I said that they know
how to work the media.  It's part of the political process, you
get media consultants to help you make sure the public hears what
you want them to hear.

Example 1: Reporters are in a hurry so they'd rather have one sound
bite that they can use, than a 10-minute speech that they have
to listen to over and over to try to summarize.  So, when I've
done political work, we always prepared the crowd so that only
(for example) 6 people total would actually speak to the press
and the rest would refer reporters to those six (we'd have the
6 people wear a special ribbon or button, etc.)  Those six people
would all be preped with the same 3 soundbites.  They were the
exact 3 messages we were trying to get out.  If a reporter got
to any of our people, we were assured that our three "hit points"
would get to the media.  Carefully plan things and you have
a good chance that your soundbite will be used as the headline.

THE RIGHT-WING HAS KNOWN THIS FOR YEARS.  THE PROGRESSIVES HAVE
JUST FIGURED IT OUT.

Example 2:  Plan your soundbite carefully enough and a reporter
will take the bait.  If you get Open Systems Today (used to
be Unix Today) look at page 109 to see what I mean.

They also know how to work the polls.  Check the sources of
those polls and you'll find that they were funded by groups
like The Rutherford Foundation and other inconspicuous names.
These places are right-wing think-tanks.  They phrase the question
right, and get the results they want.  That's why there are
a FEW polls that claim that women are anti-choice.  If you
look at how the questions were asked, hardly anyone would
answer differently.  You can make the polls swing the other
way by asking, "Do you believe that abortion should be illegal
even if the mother's life was in danger, rape, incest, and
the father was a deadbeat?"

It's all spin.

>-lets his wife talk to the press.
>-(*) foot note this to a friend of mine that knows Randal Terry.
>
>Huh? Are you saying that all pro-lifers feel this way about women? 

I'm saying that's where their funding and leadership comes from.

Tom
-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
       Both candidates are offering economic packages, but only
          one candidate can leave us with a President Quayle.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49674 misc.legal:18126 alt.politics.usa.misc:89 alt.politics.usa.constitution:531
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Date: 6 Oct 92 08:24:58 GMT
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore

In article <farenebt.718340867@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>Secondly, if they weren't opposed to term limits,
>why did they vote unanimously not to include them in the Constit.?

I'll lay odds that the founding fathers were opposed to child molestation.
But, for some strange reason, there is no prohibition in the Constitution
on such or similar practices. It follows, according to Farenellian logic,
that laws against child molestation are pattently unconstitutional on their
face.

When you arge that something is unconstitution, you are arguing that
it violates the constituion in some way. There are any number of reasons
that the original proposal was not passed including that the framers did
not consider it necessary given the practices of the time.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48638 alt.rush-limbaugh:6223 alt.politics.bush:7204 alt.politics.clinton:7832 alt.politics.elections:14671 talk.abortion:39479 alt.sex:31368
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:41:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Sep27.204501.4095@Warren.MENTORG.COM> tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>
>The real "issue behind the issue" of abortion is the woman's access to
>employment(*).  If you talk one-on-one with Terry Randal you'll find that
>he couldn't care less about killing fetuses, etc.  He HONESTLY believes
>that a woman's place is in the home and that if women have access to
>safe, legal, birth control OR abortion that it will be easier for them
>to be a part of the workforce.  His anti-choice goals are just a
>vehicle to keep women barefoot and pregnant.
>
>That's why we must work against this BS.  I do.
>
>Tom
>
>(*) foot note this to a friend of mine that knows Terry Randal.

Oh, of course I trust your friend.  But I am Terry Randal's brother-in-law,  
and he told me he doesn't believe anything of the sort.

Ted

-- 
"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48721 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6106 alt.politics.bush:7266 alt.politics.elections:14714 talk.abortion:39565 alt.politics.clinton:7904
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:48:22 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Sep28.163907.22679@meaddata.com>, johnt@meaddata.com (John
Townsend) wrote:
> 
> If you want to show compassion and a high regard for other people, my 
> friend, the answer is not abortion.  It is a common myth that the Supreme 
> Court's 1973 legalization of abortion caused any significant reduction in 
> the number of women's deaths due to complications from abortion, when in 
> fact the numbers are nearly the same (I can get these if you wish).

I'd be thrilled to see documentation for this lie.

> Furthermore, several surveys, including one by Planned Parenthood, confirm 
> that at least 90% of women who have abortions do so not by choice, but 
> because they believe they are forced to.  That is, they would rather carry 
> the baby to term, but for financial or circumstantial reasons are compelled 
> to abort it.

This is also a lie.

> By the way, the issue in this Presidential election is not whether or not to
> have legalized abortion; it is whether or not to require taxpayers to foot 
> the bill for it.

This is also a lie.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:14:49 GMT

cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook) writes about Bruce Varney:

> maybe he just thinks it will get him lots of email from women

It certainly won't get him any _friendly_ mail; maybe he just
wants attention.  I have to wonder how much luck he's having
getting dates.


-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49035 alt.rush-limbaugh:6361 alt.politics.bush:7455 alt.politics.clinton:8128 alt.politics.elections:14893 talk.abortion:39929 alt.sex:31625
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Re: Jack S Slams Holocaust Survivors (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 15:38:39 GMT
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL

In article <1992Oct2.171601.6438@netnews.alf.dec.com> harry@netnews.alf.dec.com (Harry Katz) writes:


>arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) continues:
>
>	It would make all the survivors and witness look like the
>	senile old farts I said they were.
>
>Here Mr. Schmidling reveals the true depths of his compassion for
>innocent victims of oppression.  After what these Holocaust survivors
>have been through, Mr. Schmidling's puerile epithets will not hurt
>them, but they do offend those of us whose parents are survivors.

When 90 year old people misidentify a man for something as henious ass
being Ivan the T, calling them senile or farts is the nicer alternative
to calling them what they probalby really are.  Vengeful, fiscious,
hate mongers.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Improving the nation's infrastructure
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 16:17:47 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <28399@life.ai.mit.edu> bc151@cleveland.freenet.edu (Ken Fisler) writes:
]
]On the 4th of June this year (1992) Democratic Senator Albert
]Gore of Tennessee introduced a bill, S. 2813, as a companion to a
]pending House bill, H.R. 2772, that would establish in the GPO
][Government Printing Office] a single point of free online public
]access, through federal depository libraries, to a wide range of
]federal databases that contain electronically stored public
]information. The Gore bill would also provide public access to 
]agency databases through computer networks like the Internet and
]the future National Research and Education Network (NREN) for a
]fee, not to exceed "the incremental cost of dissemination." The

This sounds like great stuff until you look at how the government defines
"the incremental cost of dissemination." The NTIS charges $800 to
duplicate a computer tape. Other agencies are equally stingy with
their information. Some sell information for $25.00 while
others sell equivalent information for $40,000.

I would like to see the depositories online with inexpensive access, but
don't count on reasonable fees.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:20:03 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


(me)
    >I can show you case law where a judge fined a man for selling
    >his house to newlyweds without telling them that the house
    >was haunted. I wouldn't go basing my real estate law on such
    >cases, though.

/(phil)
/You are one hell of a stupid motherfucker, to quote Arnold. 

Ooooh!  Such strong words.   Here, lemme see if I can say them also:

Phil, you are a fucking irrational bastard who wants a legal foundation
to practice homophobia.  

There; how did I do?

Clayton tried to point out a legal case where a judge saw things
Clayton's way.  That doesn't mean much; random cases like that happen
all the time.  

Several years ago an appeals court judge by the name of Hand ruled 
that creationism deserved equal treatment in classrooms along with 
evolution.  That case actually happened; does that prove that 
creationism deserves to be treated as science?  Not 
hardly.

Ergo, occasional legal flukes do not prove that a point is valid,
nor do they make good case law.