HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 09:50:17 GMT

>burkhardt writes:
>|> 
>|> The point about "very real physical and emotional risks of' abortion"
>|> was very well said Andrea.  In the 70's I can remember planned parenthood
>|> trying to sell the point that Pro-Choice was simply an educational matter
>|> about trying to avoid conception via the pill, IUD's... not about abortion.
>|> What Pro-Choice is practicing now is "Limited Choice" without full discloser
>|> of all the choices.
>

Studies show most women react to an abortion with relief.  They don't talk
about the feeling of relief because they are *supposed* to feel terrible
about having the abortion.  If they said how they felt they would be
judged. Anonymous studies do not show heavy emotional costs.  The women I
know who have had abortions have not have serious emotional costs. They
made the decision soberly, but are not dwelling on it.

As for Planned Parenthood's position, they have worked for years to prevent
unwanted pregnancy via birth control.  They have received nothing but grief
from the RTL movement for those efforts.  The RTL movement is hostile to
contraception as well as abortion in most of its leadership and groups.

This situation has led to a breakaway RTL group that seeks to decrease
unwanted pregnancy by increasing the availability of contraception.  If
anyone is interested in knowing more about this group, send e-mail.  It is
an exciting development on this very tired and over-worked terrain, and the
people involved appear to be genuinely interested in finding common
ground.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 03:25:01 GMT


There is a problem here that so far I haven't been able to figure out,
and I have attempted to find help about it, no luck yet.

The problem is for some reason I can't type more than a screen's worth of
information, there's no scrolling, plus I can't quote any text from the
message I'm replying to.
I have been trying to get help on this, please don't assume I haven't
Thanx,
Simon
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49199 talk.abortion:40118 alt.activism.d:3485
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:30:20 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


In article <1992Oct2.180123.18903@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>I just wonder how rational some people are when they make that decision.

I would consider it extremely presumptuous on my part to try and judge the
rationality of the some 5 million women in the U.S. facing a pregnancy every 
year.  Do you have some idea regarding their rationality?
 
>What about making a choice for life??

It would appear the majority of them do.  I just looked at my 1992 World
Almanac and Book of Facts.  They say that between the years 1983-1988,
there were 16,466,000 live births.  They also say that during this time,
there were 325.4 surgical abortions per every 1,000 live births.  So
discounting any miscarriages or non-surgical abortions, it would seem
that when faced with a pregnancy, women are still choosing continuing
the pregnancy by a factor of close to 3 to 1.

A little something else I discovered from the Almanac:
During the 5 years from 1983-1988, 35% of the 16,466,000 live births
were un-wanted.  It doesn't say how it determined which were un-wanted.
It does say that 30% of those 35% were unwanted and the other 70% were
mistimed.  According to the Almanac, even the majority of the un-wanted
pregnancys result in live births.  

>Simon

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Yet another lie/distortion from a Slick Willie supporter
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:22:43 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Oct5.233620.4719@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.223005.20550@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <BvMrtI.DGG@agora.rain.com> robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes:

>>>  Clinton announced today that he finally supports NAFTA,
>>>although he still has "reservations".

>>Let's be a bit more accurate.  He supports NAFTA, but he wouldn't sign
>>the agreement in its present form.  He hasn't been specific about the
>>exact changes needed.

>Glancing at the NYT article, "The Democratic Presidential nominee said
>an acceptable trade agreement should include provisions that would
>toughen environmental and worker-safety standards in Mexico 

It already does... so what does he want that isn't in the agreement?

>and allow
>the President to establish a commission to monitor the agreement's
>impact."  

He can do that without amending the agreement.

>A Bush Administration official, Carla Hill, "the US Trade
>Representative,... said the 'omissions' that Clinton identified had
>already been alleviated by the agreement, which is the product of more
>than a year of negotiation."

>>Once more Slick Willie tries to stand on both sides of the issue.  He
>>supports NAFTA - but he still won't sign it.  He supports free trade,
>>but the unions don't need to worry - he doesn't really support free
>>trade.

>I still argue Clinton is a free-trader at heart, given his policy
>staff (Reich).  

Maybe, but if so he sure isn't willing to say so.  Even if he is a
free-trader at heart, what makes you think he will have any more
integrity as a president than as a candidate?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: The Decline of America: The Police State, footnote
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 05:07:40 GMT

The Decline of America: The Police State, footnote

Matt Wuerker Cartoon:

[Old lady, man in suit, and man with baseball cap and beer-mug T shirt
stand together listening to the radio she's holding next to her ear]

RADIO: "4 teenagers were shot by a semi-automatic assault weapon in
drive by..."

MAN(1): "It's drugs -- we need a war on drugs!"

RADIO: "School kids shot by high po9wered rifle..."

MAN(2): [Making fist with one hand, with smile and evil gleam in his
eye]: "We need the death penlaty for pushers and kingpins!"

RADIO: "Family taken hostake by mad man with a .33, a .22, and a .45"

MAN(1): "Call in the army! Militarize the borders!"

MAN(2): [Putting fist into palm of other hand] "Martial law in the
cities!!"

Old Lady: "And institute some kind of gun control!"

BOTH MEN: [Both outraged and dismayed:} WHAT? HAVE YOU NO RESPECT FOR
FREEDOM AND CIVIL RIGHTS !!" -- "(she must be on drugs!)"



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: That Society thing...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:15:23 GMT

frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
] regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
] : In article <1992Sep22.173704.15681@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
] : >
] : >Why do you feel society _owes_ you a second choice?  
] : >Why has society no right to protect a foetus if it sees fit?
] : 
] : Society isn't involved.  Society doesn't "owe" anything, specifically not
] : an adherance to some policy of 'responsible behavior' that is, on the face
] : of it, irresponsible.
] 
] A gang threatens your daughter's life.  Is society involved now?  
] Or are you going to strap on a bazooka and sort it yourself?
] How about rape?  Society should butt the hell out, it's between a 
] woman and her rapist, if I've got you right.


trivia question is the 'daughter's life' that is being
threatened that of an actually BORN person, or that of
a Potentially Could Be Born Person, like one of her
OvumGeneratedPotentialPersons....


Second, does you has a problem with folks who
actually do something about defending themselves
and their families?????

Even if it means Making Nasty PoohPers of Gang Members?

{ get a stock Riot Gun, Naval Issue, One Each, load 
with a mix bag of Buck, Slug and Flechette, douse
liberally as needed until Social Complication Is Cleared. }

Or Are You not one of 'Those "ProLifers"' who understands
the Pure Sanctity of Life gambitry to the point where
allowing one's actually born daughter to be raped is
an acceptable choice in life.

Be Very, Very, Very Careful How you answer....

You wouldn't wish to up set the 'ProLifers' out there....

ciao
drieux





-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: No on 9
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 19:43:12 GMT

In article <12594@optilink.UUCP> manley@optilink.UUCP (BIFF!!!!1) writes:

>I HERE THERE RECUTEING TOOO!!!!

Now *that* double entendre was worthwhile!  Thanks for one of the
better laughs of the week.

love, T.
-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You are just naive and repressed because
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  penis envy is here and it's now and it's
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48858 alt.politics.perot:1731 alt.politics.elections:14801
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: If you don't want Perot:  Bend over to the Republocrats.
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:58:53 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <1992Sep30.211949.6099@wuecl.wustl.edu>, gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:
> 
>    I will admit that many of Perot's economic ideas make sense and are
> needed to solve the problems that we have with the deficits and debt.
> 
>    The problem I have with Ross Perot is not with his ideas, it is with him
> the man.  This country cannot afford to have as a President :
> 
> 	- a person who dropped out of the Presidential race because he
> 		didn't think he could win.

  Strategy, errors, or maybe a master plan??  Don't know.  If he announces that
he's in today, I'm sure that'll have to be answered.

> 	- a person who has an ego the size of the state he is from.

  And Bush doesn't??

> 	- a person who as a business man got rich from government contracts,
> 		individualized tax breaks and the like.
> 	- a person who cannot identify with people unlike himself 
> 		(eg. his "you people" comments in July).

  You're describing most people already in office with those last three
comments.

  While we're on it, if you wrote the dreaded "you people" speech, what would
you have said instead??  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm??

> 
>    I'm sure there are more points which could be added to this list, and I
> invite others to contribute.

  Go ahead.

  I'll add one more...

        - the only candidate with the guts to tell the American people that
                 they're going to have to sacrifice to get the deficit down.

						Mike Falkner

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Subject: Re: Another freshman on the net
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
	<1992Sep30.223800.20932@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
	<1992Oct3.005007.10613@samba.oit.unc.edu>
	<1992Oct5.011950.18666@news.acns.nwu.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:43:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.011950.18666@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.005007.10613@samba.oit.unc.edu>                          
>Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Sep30.223800.20932@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>              
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>>>"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."
>This statement is true.  Voting Democratic is easier than applying for a job
>and actually working at a job.

Or at least easier than keeping a job under a Republican administration.

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                      neeri@iis.ethz.ch
"If it's such a great plan, why did it take 3 1/2 years to come up with?"
	---George Bush, 1980, concerning Jimmy Carter's economic plan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
From: ronf@panther3.panther.mot.com (Ron Feigen)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends MLKing Slur (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Organization: Motorola Panther Project, Chandler, AZ
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:23:25 GMT

In article <BvGDJr.6xn@ddsw1.mcs.com> arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.023319.2619@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:
>>What I am wondering is if there is some hidden agenda here. Even if
>>MLK *did* "sleep around", that doesn't make him a "bigot" and a
>>"dirty old man" as Jack Schmidling (ARF) called him. 
>
>I am not sure why you keep avoinding the point that he is supposed to be
>a "man of god".  Most of the street signs with his name on it use the
>title "rev".  What do you need to see the hypocracy of saying the "rev"
>d
>Dr King slept around?

Of course the "evidence" (against Dr King) was conveniently sealed, so all you
have is an allegation.  Which of course is all you (ARF) need, I know.  If the
allegation damn a Jew, Black, or other minority.
>
>
>
>Hell, we have seen
>>Arfie lead a crusade for David Duke, who did far worse things than
>>"sleep around". Kindof makes you wonder why Arfie is willing to
>
>Perhaps you would like to point out the "far worse things" Duke has 
>done.

We know you think the KKK,White Aryans,White Supremists and Neo-nazis are really
an enlighten bunch of guys, who are way ahead of their time.  But most of us
find them revolting.  The activities and beliefs that they promote are 
either ILLEGAL or unconstitutional (or both).  

*side note*  In AZ this week a 16 year old high-school student was given a 5 day
suspension for passing out KKK literature/membership cards.  The KKK 
asked THE ACLU!!!!! for assistance.  They felt the boys civil rights where
violated.  Don't you love it when the KKK asks the ACLU to make sure they
have the civil right to promote the denial of the civil rights of non- whites!

-- 

>
Ron Feigen
ronf@panther.mot.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Bush is a Mass Murderer (was Re: Bush's Accomplishments)
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:09:29 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <92269.125701MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
]In article <5532@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) says:
]>:He could have done that by going after the SOB Hussein and sparing
]>:the innocent 250,000 that he killed.
]
]>How many lives do you think should die in going after Saddam Hussein?
]>(And I'm not exclusively referring to American lives. Iraqi lives as
]>well.) How will we know we have Saddam rather than some look-alike?
]
]I heard that Hitler didn't really die in his bunker in 1945; it was a clone,
]and he's alive and well and the mayor of a small town in Argentina today.
]
]Come on! This look-alike stuff only happens in bad spy novels. Surely there's
]a better argument than that.

Wrong! Hussein, like many leaders, does indeed employ lookalikes in order
to reduce his probability of assassination. Schwartzkopf, last night,
thought that even if we conquered Baghdad we wouldn't have been able
to get Saddam. Without the invasion (which is obviously what you
propose), it obviously would have been a hell of a lot harder.

-- 
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
"Government is the agent of those who are too refined to do their own mugging."
  Joseph Sobran
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49795 alt.politics.usa.misc:99 alt.politics.usa.constitution:544
From: tyersome@toxic (Randall Tyers)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Date: 6 Oct 1992 20:06:37 GMT
Organization: Plant Biology
NNTP-Posting-Host: toxic.berkeley.edu
Summary: omnipotence

were the "Framers" really omnipotent? :)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: geff@iastate.edu (Geff Underwood)
Subject: Re: Republican Party Bankrolled by Drug Kingpins
Organization: none for me, thanks, I'm trying to cut down
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 14:45:09 GMT

In article <60609@mimsy.umd.edu> tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!)) writes:
>
> The following editorial is from the
>_Baltimore Sun_, Sept 22:

[deletions...]

>     "We would much rather see a full-fledged campain against the whole 
>culture of violence. As a way of halting the dangerous spread and use of
>guns, we urge that national attention be given to the possibility of
>removing the profit motive from the drug trade. For it is the drive for
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>money, to feed a habit or a lucrative life-style, that is turning our
 ^^^^^                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>city into a battle zone and spawning a criminal system that stretches
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>from the Andes to the local street corner. `Decriminalization will not
>solve this country's drug abuse problem, but it could solve our most
>intractable crime problem,' Mr. Schmoke said when he first proposed the
>move in 1988.

[more deletions...]

>     Hmm. You know, Clinton's gonna need a Drug Policy person for his
>cabinet. Schmoke campained hard for Clinton in Baltimore during the
>primary, and Clinton won with a fairly big margin. Do you think maybe...
>nah.

Unfortunately, "nah" is exactly right, as far as I can tell.  I would love
to be convinced otherwise -- if I thought that Clinton understood that
banning things just means that criminals will kill to sell them, I would
happily vote for him.  I don't see how I can think that, when his stated
solution is more restrictions on gun purchases; he wants to do for "the
most deadly assault weapons" what the current WOD has done for cocaine.

This paragraph shouldn't be needed, but it is.  The fact that Clinton
scares me does NOT mean that I can stand Bush.  I've had years to get used
to the fact that Bush is a bozo, but I can _almost_ support Clinton.  It
really hurts to realize that somebody who agrees with me on almost every
important issue would do everything in his power to assure that our
streets will become rivers of blood.

--
Geff Underwood   | "Watch me pull Prohibition out of my hat!"
geff@iastate.edu | "Again?  That trick never works!"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: Love or Sex
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:05:02 GMT

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. 

>Brian
>Tetsu Yama

I think I'll choose what I/we already have. Though sex with lots of different 
people was lots of fun in my youth, my wife and I now have an abundance of
both. Wouldn't trade it for Cindy Crawford. BTW what da heck is this doing
in alt.politics???

Stan Knight
|"Dan would rather be playing golf then having sex any day."|
|      "Marilyn Quayle"---speaking of her husband           |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
Organization: gte
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:22:33 GMT

In article <adams.717708529@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
> 
> >>AIDS is not God's way of punishing the homosexuals for their lifestyle.
> >>
> >>It's God's way of punishing the homosexuals for electing people like
> >>Willie Brown (San Francisco) and John Cullerton (Chicago) to office.
> >
> >AIDS is not a punishment from God at all. It is a natural consequence
> >of ignoring the users manual. Sort of like jumping of a cliff. No punishment
> >but a lot of consequences.
> 
> What user's manual?
> 
The one on genetic engineering.

Had you not heard of the call for a virus similar to AIDs that was
made in the early to mid 70's?

[Sources?!? you want sources?  Get real man, everybody knows that
this is the truth!  -- See the Strecker Memorandum]


-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: i represent myself
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:45:42 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.

the elected officials appoint the robed ones.
vote your conscience.

-------------
mister rogers
-------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: UPI: Wilson signs gay employment rights bill
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:51:44 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.



So I guess that means there's "no peace for Clayton" as long as this
bill lives, eh?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
From: ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleenus Schwartz Davis)
Subject: Re: I hereby declare...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:14:34 GMT

Martin Guerrero:
>>I hereby declare drieux the winner of the
>>  Person who has created the most 'threads' or new subject headings in
>>     the last few days.

TMCCART3@ua1vm.ua.edu
>And I hereby declare that drieux's postings make the least sense.

That's how threads get started -- contradicting or flaming someone with 
whom you disagree, or who presents holey (or holy :) arguments...
Kind of a waste to follow up a perfect post with something like, "Yeah!"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc