HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Summary: I unwanted pregnancy slavery?
Keywords: abortion
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:35:58 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1992Dec14.175408.163649@watson.ibm.com>
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
|In <1181@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
|>In article <1992Nov27.195814.17466@rotag.mi.org>
|>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
|>|In article <1152@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
|>|>In any case, how is this different than saying, "they implicitly agree
|>|>to arrange care for the [possible] child" when people willingly engage
|>|>in heterosexual intercourse (i.e. excluding rape or incest cases)?
|>|
|>|Because of the "[possible]" part you felt compelled to insert into your
|>|sentence. The legality of possibilities differs substantially from the
|>|legality of actualities. In the case of law wrt reproduction, there can be
|>|no such implicit agreement before birth, although an explicit agreement
|>|is always permissible.
|>
|>You argue above in effect that allowing the child to be born is an
|>implicit agreement to care for it.  How is that different from saying
|>there is an implicit responsibility on those who engage in sex to care
|>for any resultant children?  It isn't.
|
|You are correct.  If any children result, there is an implicit responsibility
|to care for them.  However, action may be taken to ensure that no children
|result.  For example, contraceptives.  If those fail, then abortion is
|a way of ensuring that no child results.

As I have already shown, in arguments with you, the fetus or embryo is a
child by definition, and therefore abortion, does not prevent a child
from being the result of sex.  Even if you still don't agree, that is
how I understand and use the word "child".  Therefore you are simply
dodging the question I pose above.  Changing the word "children" in what
I write above to "concepta", or what ever, doesn't change anything of
substance.  I submit you are not interested in facing these issues
substantively, but rather in scoring rhetorical points for your cause.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:02:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.191743.7958@asl.dl.nec.com>, dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
> All I am saying is that unless you can show me that homosexual sex
> can create life (as the heterosexual sex act does) than it is an
> un-natural act. Homosexual sex uses a human output device (waste
> disposal) as an input device. This is not natural and therefore
> should not be considered normal and should not be taught as an
> alternate lifestyle. 
 
  Had a blow job lately Doug? Or is that unnatural too? 
  Sheesh.

  [  Gawd, why is it that homo haters are so hung up on anal sex?
   Is that all they think we do? And what about lesbians? Blank out.
     Let me guess, he either doesn't think oral sex is OK which puts
   him in the het-sex-is-evil-but-pardonable-because-we-have-to-procreate-
   because-god-said-so or he does think it's OK and falls into the
   convoluted Zeleny-like any-sex-is-ok-so-long-as-there-is-an-available-
   pussy twaddle ]
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:05:26 GMT

In article <1ij20hINNkhm@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> rww@mugwump.cl.msu.edu (Richard W. Wiggins) writes:
>In article <5066@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
> The point is that Clinton is rich
>> enough to be able to make a choice, but he does not support money
>> for school vouchers to allow less rich people to make such a choice.
>	
>A quibble: Bill Clinton is not "rich".  His salary as governor of
>Arkansas was $35K.  Hillary Clinton has earned around $100K but 
>I'm not sure consistently.  To be sure, the Clintons will be
>comfortable in the White House, and at $250K plus expenses
>plus free housing they can afford $12K or so to send Chelsea
>to a private school, but it's stretching it to call Bill
>Clinton "rich".  As I recall the net worth of the family is
>a few hundred thousand dollars -- not poor, not rich.

Now you're really reaching, it does fit HIS definition of rich,
top 2 percent, if it's good enough for him.....


>
>I see no inconsistency between supporting better public schools
>and choosing the best option one can afford for one's own kids.

I guess you see no inconsistency between avoiding Military service by
dodging the draft, and sending soldiers off to die as Commander and Chief.

>You might advocate excellent highways but fly across the country
>because you can afford it.  Remember that Chelsea is a separate
>human and may have had a lot of input into this decision.

Now, you're talking Apples and oranges... get a better arguement than that..

---------------------------------
J.R. Ordon
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13038 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11548 alt.politics.clinton:19625 alt.politics.bush:15550
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Clinton Cabinet
Organization: SPS
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:25:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.182614.13135@tellab5.tellabs.com>, linda@tellabs.com (Linda Jensen) writes:
|> 	Whereas, liberals marry attractive women (witness Clinton, Gore) 

 You need glasses.
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: Self-similar
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 04:13:30 GMT

In article <nate.1037@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
|
|     If they're not interested in taking advantage of the opportunity in 
| public schools, why is it going to be any different when they transfer 
| over to private schools? The public schools have their problems, but I 
| don't think that lack of motivation or placing a low value on education 
| is one of them. The values school children carry into the classroom have 
| a definite tendency to reflect the values that the parents display at 
| home, and I'm not convinced that unmotivated kids are going to be any 
| better students in private classrooms than they are now in public ones.

So _all_ the kids are bloody well just going to have to suffer together.
With school choice, the motivated kids will not have to suffer at the 
hands of the unmotivated kids.  The parents who care will not have to try 
to undo the damage done by being forced to put their kids into such an 
environment.  

| > [...]
| 
|     I'm sure it would go a long way. I would imagine that the gap between 
| public and private schools would become even more pronounced, and with the 
| departure from public schools of the last students who really care I would 
| imagine that the peer group values in public schools would become even 
| worse than they are now. I certainly can't argue with the fact that it 
| would result in change, but I'm not sure that I would call it progress.

Ah, yes.  We want everybody (except the rich and powerful) to have the 
same abysmal education.  Thus everybody (except the rich and powerful) 
will be equally well (?) educated.  

Every child taken out of that kind of environment will benefit.  It is
not clear that harm done by leaving those students who care in the
environment you prefer for them is actually helping those students who
do not care.  

Policies are, after all, more important than people, eh?


Regards,

-- 

Will Bralick			          Speaking _only_ for myself.

Standard disclaimers apply.            Void where prohibitted by law.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
XXXDate: Tue, 5 Jan 93 16:39:23 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A76F6A3B9C014519@oma_train_4.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: oma_train_4.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 05 Jan 93 22:35:45 GMT

In article <4JAN199315383655@zeus.tamu.edu> , rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
writes:
>|The best argument for gay marriages is that such life partners are not
>|eligible for benefits that marriage partners get.  The best argument
against
>|is that, since marriage is fundamentally a religious institution, to
allow
>|marriages contrary to religious morality would be blasphemy.  
>
>	I know you're on the good side, Greg.  But the blasphemy part
>would depend on in what religion the couple are married.  There's
>no blasphemy within the Unitarian Churches, no blasphemy in the MCCs.
>Since religion is supposed to be a freedom in the USA, then those who
>limited themselves only to religious arguments wouldn't get very far.
>Which is fine.

I know, I'm a Unitarian Universalist myself.  I was speaking in deference
to those who have the most limited definition of marriage.

Politics is the art of compromise, and this is a very political religious
issue.  The only solution is one that leaves the fundamentalists with the
ability to retain some ability to believe that they have "won."

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    | having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             | things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                | piss you off.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13517 alt.sex:41548 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12109
From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: 10 Jan 93 07:55:17 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1993Jan4.152505.22773@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>, greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman) writes:
|> 
|> As you can see, the amendment was cleverly phrased to imply that it prevents
|> gays from acquiring special rights, but if you exclude the filler, you get:
|> 
|> Colorado...shall not adopt any statute...whereby homosexual...practices or
|> relationships...shall entitle any person... to claim of discrimination.
|> 
|> Since anybody else =can= be protected from discrimination, this amendment is
|> on very shaky ground with respect to the 14th Amendment to the U.S.
|> Constitution.  (You can look that one up yourself)

	Can an employer refuse to hire me if I'm, say, a Nazi?  If you say yes,
then discrimination is already legal.  The question is this: what principles
(besides the principle that it should make a profit) does a business have a right
to uphold, including in its hiring practices if necessary?  In my opinion, a
business has a right to uphold the principle that homosexuality is immoral, just
as it has a right to uphold the principle that Nazism is immoral (not to compare
the two; personally, I don't think homosexuality is immoral).
	To violate the business's right to hire in accordance with its principles
is a clear violation of both the right to liberty and the right to property, and
hence, in my opinion, is unconscionable.

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 15:29:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.221458.28757@asl.dl.nec.com>
dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:


>>Wrong.  Do you also think homosexuality in animals is a
>>"lifestyle choice"?  Do you have any facts, arguments or evidence
>>of any kind for your opinion?

>Check previous posts, some articles where listed by another person.

If you have arguments or facts, give them.  Don't bother giving me the
run around, I'm not impressed.


-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: These are my opinions.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:12:57 GMT

In article <C0I3J6.4s6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> albrigh@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas g albright) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.155136.18478@asl.dl.nec.com> 
>dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>>
>>Apparently you still have not gotten the point. Most of the drug and
>>sex ed. programs in use today have been found to increase the use of
>>drugs and have increased promiscuity (teen pregnancy, std's). They
>
>This is absolutely false!  Everywhere in the world where there is sex
>education, children postpone the onset of sexual behavior, and then
>engage in it less often.  STD rates are lowered too.
>

I too have read studies (I don't have the sources, sorry) that show that
drug education programs (such as DARE) increase drug use, and sex education
programs increases fornication. IF parents taught their children
moral values instead of heathen relativism AND IF the parents shelter their
children, there wouldn't be a problem to talk about.  It is just that a
large number of people don't get the connection between sin and its 
consequences.  Adult examples of the kind of seared consciences this kind of
child rearing produces are becoming more and more common it seems. 

Signature follows:
"Thy Word is TRUTH"   
                    
 
=========================================================================
David L. Hanson       Internet --> dlhanson@nap.amoco.com
Amoco Corporation     X.400    --> A=attmail,P=amoco,S=Hanson,G=David,I=L
Any opinions expressed are my own!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 05:07:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.201444.17666@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.123444.25149@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>
>>Back it up or take it back.  I think you'll find very little religious
>>influence in the lives of most of those who wrote the Constitution.
>
>I have forwarded to Greg a collection of 3-4 articles which I have collected 
>off the net (mostly annotated) over a few years which indeed do show the 
>huge influence of not just religion, but Christianity, in their lives.  
>Anyone else who would like this, simply mail me and I will forward it.
>
>There is no question that our founders were extremely Christian.
>
>Ted

In your own mind I am sure that is true but in the minds of the people of
the world it is very questionable indeed.

The posting of an article to the usenet does not in and of it self lend any
more validity to the subject than does your posts, so why should these 3 to
4 articles which you gathered over a period of some years have anymore
weight than the nonsense that your keyboard produces?  Since it is possible
that each is a reprise of the previous post to the best of the posters
recallection.



Ciao!
	John S. :^)
	teddybur@netcom.com
__

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: using the bible to advance bigotry
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:03:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.213003.3760@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes:
>From porthos!walter!uunet!caen!nic.umass.edu!news.amherst.edu!twpierce Tue Jan 12 16:28:51 EST 1993
>
>In article <1993Jan12.183800.662@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes:
>
>>>What hatred?  I don't hate gays.  I just don't accept that lifestyle as being
>>>valid for my family.  I also dislike pornography, beastiality and jumping from
>>>partner to partner, and believe none of these should be presented to my 
>>>children while they are at school.  
>
>>If you refuse to consider that "lifestyle" to be "valid," you're going
>>to have a hell of a lot of explaining to do if your family decides to
>>accept it as valid, since there's not a thing you can do to prevent
>>it.
>
>I don't understand this?  Who would I explain to?  My wife and I have similar
>positions on this matter.  If one of my sons decides to pursue this lifestyle
>he is free to do so, as long as he is not doing so under my roof.  I will love
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>him no less, no more.  
 ^^^^^^^^^^^
Contradiction alert!
This simply can not be consistant, given any reasonable definition of 
the word love. I don't tell someone I love " Get out of my house, you 
immoral pervert!" unless that person has become a danger to me.How 
would your son's homosexuality endanger you? Perhaps you are saying
that you don't love your sons anyway.
>

>If my son is not gay but simply holds a different set of views, say around 15
>to 16 years of age, I will discuss them with him.  I will let him know where
>we stand and what type of behavior is acceptable in our house.  It is really 
>that simple.

You don't get it. If he holds those "views",he will be gay no matter 
what type of behavior he engages in. Nothing you can do will change that. 
Why not accept your son for who he is? Or, maybe you want him to become
a statistic. 30% of teen suicides are gay, precisely because of parents 
like you.

Robert Johnston.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kellyj@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kelly Johnson)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 02:47:30 GMT

In article <5971@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.155238.7975@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>The woman hung out a sign that said "baby welcome" when she had sex.  It 
>>is one of those laws of nature, when women have sex, babies will result.  
>>Not always, but sometimes.  Therefore, if the baby would be an intruder, 
>>then don't hang out the welcome sign.
>
>The woman hung out a sign that said "rapist welcome" when she went outside
>her home.  It is one of those laws of nature, when women go out in the world,
>rape will result.  Not always, but sometimes.  Therefore, if the rapist
>would be an intruder, then don't hang out the welcome sign.
>
>--Teddi
>-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------

How can this even compare?  In the first one, the woman consented to having
sex and a baby resulted (well sometimes as the article says).  In the second
one, sex was forced upon her.  These two cases cannot be compared.  Come up
with a better one than that, P.....LEASE.


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,a
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning 
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:53:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.182713.29272@netcom.com> howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.143318.5823@lclark.edu> snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>>In article <B74VwB1w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
>>>entropy@world.std.com (The Entropic one) writes:
>>>
>>>> In article <C0Ax5F.9K6@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer
>>>> >howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >>Because not everyone gives a damn about religion.  The majority of the
>>>> >>world population isn't Christian.  (Although Catholicism is the
>>>> >>largest single religion).
>>
>>Sorry but Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity.  It isn't a seperate
>>religion.....
>>
>
>Let me explain simple math to you.  If I have one cantelope and 150
>assortes apples, kiwi fruits, strawberries, pomegranates, bananas and
>oranges, the cantelope is the largest single fruit, even though it's
>not the majority of the fruit.  Catholics, like cantelopes, make up
>the largest single entity, while the rest of the fruits make up the
>greater part of the whole.
>
>-Howard
>
>-- 

But Christainity and Catholism is, just for discussion sake, an apple
pie.....  Not a Cherry pie verses an apple pie.....

(Although Catholicism is the largest single religion)......

Sorry but Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity.  It isn't a SEPERATE
religion.....

Maybe the second time I say it you will understand it......Do you?

The stupid thing is is that I agree in whole with what you are saying....
I just hear bigoted Christians often try to pry Catholism away from
and out of Christianity, when we Catholics are Christians.....

Bil Snodgrass 
Stands by his statement.....


>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>Howard "Pasty-faced" Berkey                       	   howard@netcom.com
>		    I just don't want to know, anymore.
>... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...    ... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 22:06:54 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <C0EF49.DJz@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer) writes:
|> Ok, let's say it was written to appeal to bigotry. How does it
|> legislate bigotry? Does it force anyone to discriminate against
|> homosexuals? 

No, but it allows them to discriminate.  It prevents any law from
being passed that makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of
a person's sexual orientation.  It's as simple as that.  So anyone
charged with discriminating against someone because they are 
homosexual can get out of it because the state constitution says
that such laws are not legal.  

We have laws preventing murder, rape and theft.  If someone passes
a law making these laws illegal, instances of these crimes will
rise.  It obviously ENCOURAGES bigotry.


Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13711 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12329 alt.politics.clinton:20151 alt.politics.bush:15834