HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Bush and the Republican Party on Family Values
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:20:11 GMT


Bush and Quayle and their revival inHouston kept talking over and over
about how the Family Values in this country were all shot to hell, so
to speak.  I have one question....

  Just what in the hell do they plan to do about it?

So, whatever they call 'family values' are just about gone.  How are they
going to change things?  Where were they the last 12 years...how could they
let things get so gone with respect to family values?  It seems to me that 
for Bush and the Republican Party to scream foul on family values is kinda
stupid, after all, they were in charge when all this erosion occured.

Oh, I forgot.  It's the Democrats in Congress' fault.  Well, that makes sense...
Bush provided absolutely NO leadership for them.  Are we to guess that he's
going to provide leadership for the next four years when he failed to do so
for the last four years?

Does he think we're that dumb?

Does he even think?


Jennifer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: aborting females
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:08:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.201106.19760@u.washington.edu> jnorris@milton.u.washington.edu (Joel Norris) writes:
}In article <1992Aug28.180126.4779@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
}>   Actually, it seems that there are many people on the .net (some of
}>whom have applied to your posting) who would like there to be no
}>sex-selection abortions, but realize that there is absolutely no way it
}>could be legislated.
}>
}>                                                            MP
}
}But are these people pro-choice or not? I would expect that pro-life people
}wouldn't like sex-selection abortions.

I am pro-choice.

I don't like sex-selection abortions.

Happy now?

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
           Remember, behind most silver linings is a cloud...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions"
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 19:02:06 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  <1992Sep1.155523.13978@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Sep01.044638.5174@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>
> >>> If they said that there were only X number of doctors who specialized
> >>> in heart transplants, I wouldn't assume that there were a number of
> >>> additional doctors who specialized in, say, podiatry, but performed an
> >>> occasional heart transplant on the side.
>
> >> What does this have to do with the subject?
>
> > They said that there were only three doctors who specialize in third-
> > trimester abortions.  You assumed that there were others who performed
> > them as well.  I gave an example to show that this assumption does not
> > necessarily follow.
>
> But the subject is whether or not 60 Minutes supports your claims.
> You said that you were unwilling to admit that 60 Minutes does not
> support your claims.  Are you claiming that 60 Minutes does support
> your claims, YES or NO?

I believe they do.  I agree that it's a bit ambiguous, but I consider it
independant corroboration of facts that I got from the net long ago.  I
can see where you might disagree since you haven't seen other sources.
You had indicated that you might write 60 Minutes and ask them about
their sources; you could ask them to clarify this at the same time.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Keywords: Reinforcements
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 21:19:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.165321.25266@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug25.140639.6280@bmw.mayo.edu> 
|> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
|> 
|> > A fetus has never been a legal person.
|> 
|> Before Roe v. Wade was handed down, there was never any constitutional
|> right to kill a member of the human species.  

Sorry, but...
	a) Roe v. Wade did not create a constitutional right to
	   kill a member of the human species. It expands the 
	   boundries of the right to privacy.

	   "...the right of personal privacy  includes the abortion
	    decision, but that this right is not unqualified and
	    must  be considered against {important} state interests
	    in regulation."
						Justice Blackman

	b) The constitution empowers the government to wage war
	   (organized killing of members of the human species).

	c) The constitution does not prohibit the people from killing
	   each other, in fact, it could be argued that since it is 
	   not prohibited, it is a right of the people.

	   It is federal and state laws (which are subsidiary to the
	   consittution) that provide penalities if one should be 
	   found guilty of killing a member of the human species outside
	   of societally approved methods.

Now, care to tackle the problem of enforcing prohibitions against
abortion while still maintaining the 5th ammendment protections for
the sexually mature individuals involved and protecting doctor-patient
confidentiality?   

	
-- 
--Bruce

"Truth is ultimately a philosophical concept,...,
 and standards of truth are adequate for practical
 purposes if they are substantially more reliable 
 then the system undergoing evaluation"
				C. E. Metz
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Should abortionists be allowed to purposely kill viable fetuses?
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:05:08 GMT

Consider the following scenario.  A woman who got pregnant from a rape
is seeking an abortion.  She had to wait until the third trimester to
save up enough money to pay for the abortion.  The woman can choose
among two abortion procedures.  Procedure A kills the viable fetus.
Procedure B has a good chance of producing a live fetus.  Both procedures
are equally safe for the woman.  The woman wants procedure A because
she doesn't want the rapist's child to haunt her memory.  Under Roe 
and Doe, this type of abortion is legal, because it would preserve 
the woman's emotional health.  The woman asks the abortionist to use 
procedure A.  If you were the abortionist, what would you do?
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: 1-900-fone-sex (was: myths about PP or something)
Date: 4 Sep 92 00:10:09 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1992Sep3.214709.260419@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> deh0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (DARCY ELIZABETH HOWE) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.175813.20675@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen
>>
>>=============================================================================
>>                       Robert Casey for President '96!
>>                        This Casey never strikes out.
>>=============================================================================
>>
>And one more post:  Robert Casey flat-out LIED about the state of PA's
>economy.  Someone who lies is not a good choice for future government posts.
>
>I live here, I know the state of PA's economy...

I live in CA and I know that Gov. Pete Wilson screws up the economy from
here to hell and back. 

Virtually EVERY single politician in this country, has some major lie
that can be brought up. Robert Casey could have told PA that the
frigging sky was red and that he was the Rain God or whatever, and he
wouldn't be any worse a "liar" than GOVERNOR BILL CLINTON (Arkansas),
who lied about his drug use, draft dodging, and I bet ten thousand
OTHER things we haven't heard of yet. 

So what else is new, besides a very serious hint of ignorance that can
be seen in the post I'm responding to? 


=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|                                                                           |
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
=============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Thank you, sincerely (was Re: Only God Can Help Us!
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 02:18:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.174556.14019@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <BtoJJo.GH7@chinet.chi.il.us> 
>katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:
>
>> Thank you, Steve and Cameron, for bringing back the realization that
>> there *are* Christians, evangelicals even, who are fair and reasonable.
>> That not all Christians are hateful and intolerant. That not all
>> Christians are hell-fire bent on forcing their will and beliefs on
>> every single human being in the world 
>
>I think these statements denigrate Christians.  You say that "not all
>Christians are hateful and intolerant".  I think that statement tends
>to promote a bigoted stereotype that Christians are "hateful and 
>intolerant".  If you said "not all homosexuals are promiscuous" or
>"not all Jews are money-grubbers" then I think people would be outraged 
>by your remarks.  I find your remarks very offensive.   

You lose again, Dougie.  I'm a homosexual.  I don't find the remark "not all
Christians are hateful and intolerant" offensive, and I don't find the remark
"not all homosexuals are promiscious" offensive, and I don't find the remark
"not all Jews are money-grubbers" offensive.

alt.quote.out.of.context is a couple of newsgroups down...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=I am not "pro-life"... - Doug Holtsinger in article                          =
=                                          <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu>   =
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: KILLfile created to prevent flamewar
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:32:22 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

cj@sgi.com writes to linda birmingham:
-> [...] Eric R tells me that The Obsessive Archivist
-> has been flaming me, despite knowing that he's
-> well-esconced in my killfile.  

eric obviously gossips with more understanding than he
reads.

interesting implication you make here: are you
suggesting that because you claim someone is in your
killfile, that same someone shouldn't be publically
commenting on your public posts? get a grip. this is a
bit much, even for you.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 02:40:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.185107.9237@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

[Deleted:  Suxanne "simply can't remember" anything...]

Boy, talk about selective memory.  MissBitch wins hands down...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=I am not "pro-life"... - Doug Holtsinger in article                          =
=                                          <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu>   =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Keywords: abortion, rape, sexual battery
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:30:05 GMT

In article <nyikos.715480570@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu 
(Peter Nyikos) stands up:

Not yet Peter, at least allow the new semester to progress a littler!

}                                                         ... I offer
}to even allow an abortion beyond the 5th week if the difference 
}between having the
}abortion and not having one is at least as great as the permanent
}loss of one kidney.  

Gosh that's big of you, Peter!  Personally, I draw the line at a spleen,
but a *kidney*!!!!

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
           Remember, behind most silver linings is a cloud...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:57:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.150632.12762@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.220041.15875@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>><1992Aug19.163139.22864@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) :
>>Don't preach responsibility. I'd be willing we could dredge up quite a lot
>>of irresponsible behavior in your past, just as we could do for everyone 
>>else, including me.
>
>And this is a good reason for acting irresponsibily?  Because we aren't
>perfect, we should even try?

No, try all you want. Don't *preach* it to me, though. In fact, don't *preach*
it to anybody.

>>Get real. I mean it. Not sarcastically either. You are quite naive if you
>>think you can just tell people "hey, get your act together. Be responsible"
>>It won't happen, hence, smell the coffee, dude, get real.
>
>Hmmm, so maybe we should repeal all law, and stop expecting people to be
>responsible, since it will never happen.

Reductio ad absurdum of the day.

>Get real.

Yes.

-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Highly Opinionated, Aging  and                      knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
            Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34886 alt.flame:12532 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:370
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: KILLfile created to prevent flamewar
Date: 3 Sep 92 23:48:46 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes:
[...]
-> >It would appear Ms. Silverio that you and others
-> >are willing to compromise the rights of women less
-> >fortunate than you.  The poor, the disadvantaged,
-> >the vulnerable.
-> 
-> I see no evidence that CJ is willing to compromise
-> poor women more than well-off women.

i know you don't. really though, kevin, even you should
realize that your limitations are not relevant from the
viewpoint of others conducting a conversation.
[...]
-> >Every compromise provides a foothold to remove one
-> >more right.  Women are deemed incapable of making
-> >the most profound personal choice and as a result
-> >intrusions into other aspects of their lives will
-> >continue to be tolerated and permitted.
-> 
-> Another slippery slope argument to throw on the
-> trash heap...

again kevin, it's perfectly ok with me that you
struggle with these concepts. the thing is, it's not
particularly sensible for you to just type words when
you have no idea of how the words you type relate to
the item(s) you're pretending to comment upon. imo, it
would be better for you to let the items you don;t
understand pass. and just think how much time that
would save you.

-> >Your profession isn't at risk from fetal protection
-> >laws, at least not yet.  Lets just hope some
-> >corporate or government bureaucrat doesn't decide
-> >that programming is a threat to future offspring.
-> 
-> Sounds like good material for a SEPARATE thread,
-> Linda.

now kevin, you've been a net.laughingstock for years
because you've always tried to tell people what to post
and where. but this is a bit much for even you. don't
you agree?

-> >What I learned was that there are a number of
-> >people in this newsgroup who pay lip service to the
-> >right of bodily autonomy.  Who bray loudly about
-> >personal freedom, yet are willing to negotiate
-> >freedom away.
-> 
-> Is an unrestricted right which exists only in
-> rhetoric better or worse than a restricted right
-> which exists as black-and-white in lawbooks? I think
-> you'll find that a lot of women would prefer the
-> latter.

don't you think it's a bit strange for you, kevin, a
male with no special skills, talent, or education in
this area, to tell a female that you know how females
think and she doesn't?

i think it's time for you to pull yourself together,
kebbin.


-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Keywords: Reinforcements
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 06:35:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.013022.2371@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# In article <1992Aug25.211935.12233@bmw.mayo.edu> 
# bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
# > The constitution does not prohibit the people from killing
# > each other, in fact, it could be argued that since it is 
# > not prohibited, it is a right of the people.
# 
# The constitution gives the people the right to commit murder?

No.  Jeez!  Can't you read?  The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly
recognize the right of the people to kill (let alone commit murder --
a considerably small subset of all killings), but it *does* IMPLY the
right to kill in self defense -- a right that is already recognized by
common law -- in the 2nd Amendment.

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"When people reached the last drop of their drinks, the face of Larry
Storch would seem to look out at them from the bottom, belch
contentedly and say, ``Now I am truly what I always was.  Pass the
corn nuts.''"
						     -- Larne Pekowsky
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 19:00:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
>In <182pdpINN16q@gilligan.East.Sun.COM> mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori) writes:
>>Since you seem so concerned with the rhythyms of nature,
>>is it wrong to interfere with nature's course when a human
>>life hangs in the balance (ie: saving a heart attack victim)?
>
>Saving lives and ending them--do you see no difference?

Yes, but which is which?  You cannot say that abortion always (or even
almost always) ends a life without utterly ignoring the women involved.
Abortion has saved many lives, both figuratively and literally.  As for
those lives you claim are ended, one could easily argue that in many,
if not most, cases, the lives had not yet started.

So whose lives would be ended and whose saved by prohibiting abortions?

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Killing in defense of possessions?
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:50:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.124138.2184@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

>Well I don't know, but I've been told: in Texas you can shoot a guy
>walking down the street if he came from your house and you think he
>might have taken something.

Texas law is hardly so cavalier about this issue. The use of deadly
force in protection of your property is dealt with in Secs. 9.41 and 9.42
of the Texas Penal Code. In order to legally use deadly force in the
situation you describe here, the following conditions must be met:

From Sec. 9.41 (which governs the use of force generally to protect
property):

- You must "reasonably believe" that force is "immediately necessary" to
  recover the property and you have to have used the force "immediately
  or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession" and

- You must "reasonably believe" the other person had no claim of right
  when he dispossessed you of the property, *or* the other person must
  have accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud
  against you.

From Sec. 9.42 (which governs the use of deadly force to protect
property):

- You must meet the requirements of Sec. 9.41 (listed above), and

- You must reasonably believe *either* that you are preventing the other
  person's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated
  robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the
  nighttime *or* that you are preventing the person from fleeing 
  and escaping with the property immediately after he committed burglary,
  robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime, and

- You must reasonably believe that the property cannot be protected or
  recovered by any other means, *or* that the use of force other than
  deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose you or
  another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
  

As you can see, this law doesn't create a defense for you if you decide
to shoot someone who's walking away from your house and "might" have
taken something. Use of force has its legal limits, and use of deadly force
has very strict limitations.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion